PP v Yadao (2012)
investigation.
[Abad, J]
I. FACTS:
This case which involves the alleged summary
execution of suspected members of the Kuratong
Baleleng Group.is once again before the court
questioning the RTC's determination of the absence
of probable cause and its dismissal of the criminal
action.
18May'95. PNP Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence
Task Group (PNP ABRITG), then headed by Police
Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson, Traffic Mgt
Command (TMC), and Criminal Investigation
Command (CIC), killed 11 suspected members of the
Kuratong Baleleng along Commonwealth Ave. in QC.
SPO2 Delos Reyes from CIC told the press that it was
a summary execution, not a shootout. After
investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for Military
affairs absolved all police officers. On review, the
Office of Ombudsman reversed the findings and filed
charges of murder against police officers, while
downgrading liability of Zubia, Acop, and Lacson to
accessory.
Sandiganbayan transferred their cases to RTC on
ground that non of the principal accused had the rank
of the Chief Superintendent or higher.
Pending resolution, RA 8249 was passed, expanding
the SB's jurisdiction by deleting the world "principal"
from the phrase "principal accused" to apply to all
pending cases. Therefore, the Kuratong Baleleng
cases were retained in SB. Respondent Lacson
challenged the constitutionality of RA 8249 which
case SC upheld the validity but ordered the transfer
of the case to RTC since the info did not allege that
the offenses were committed in relation to or in the
discharge of their official functions.
Before RTC QC could arraign respondents, SP02
Delos Reyes and other prosecution witnesses
recanted their affidavits. Some of the victim's heirs
also executed affidavits of desistance. This prompted
the respondents to file separate motions for the
determination of probable cause before the issuance
of warrants of arrest.
2 years later (2001). PNP Director Leandro Mendoza
sought to revive the cases against respondents by
requesting the DOJ to conduct another prelim.
Investigation on the strength of the affidavits of certain
inspectors. DOJ secretary granted the motion and
constituted a panel of prosecutors to conduct the
Lacson filed a petition for prohibition with TRO, on
grounds of right against double jeopardy, which the
court denied. The panel then found probable cause to
hold Lacson and his co-accused liable as principal for
the 11 counts of murder, and therefore filed info
before RTC QC, now presided over by respondent
Judge Yadao.
Lacson then filed (1) a petition for certiorari before CA
assailing RTC's order renewing the investigation, and
(2) a motion for judicial determination of probable
cause before RTC QC, which he later sought for
suspension.
CA issued the TRO enjoining RTC from issuing
warrants of arrest and granted the petition on ground
of double jeopardy since although the dismissal of
crim cases was provisional, such dismissal became
permanent 2 years after they were not revived.
Upon prosecution's appeal, SC ruled that Lacson
failed to prove compliance of Sec8, Rule117,
governing provisional dismissal, and therefore
directed the RTC QC to try the cases with dispatch.
Upon re-raffle in RTC, the criminal cases still went to
Branch 81, presided by Judge Yadao. The
prosecution requested for a re-raffle of the cases to a
family court, on ground that 2 of the victims were
minors. Judge Yadao denied motion, on ground that
Sec5 of RA 8369 applies only to living minors. She
also granted the motions for determination of
probable cause and dismissed the cases against
respondents since affidavits of prosecution were
inconsistent with those submitted in the prelim
investigation before the Ombudsman.
The prosecution then filed a motion to recuse or
disqualify Judge Yadao with prayer to reconsider her
order, and an administrative complaint against her for
dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interests of
the service, manifest partiality, and knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment. The MR was denied by
the judge.
Prosecution filed the present special civil action of
certiorari before the SC.
II. ISSUES:
WON Yadao gravely abused her discretion when
she dismissed the criminal actions on the ground of
lack of probable cause and barred the presentation
of additional evidence in support of the prosecution's
motion for reconsideration - NO
WON the cases fall under the jurisdiction of family
courts - NO
WON Yadao should have inhibited herself - NO
III. RATIONALE:
Issue 1: Determination of Probable Cause
Prosecution stresses that under Section 6, Rule 112
of the Rules of Court Judge Yadao's duty was to
determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing
the arrest warrants solely on the basis of the
investigating prosecutor's resolution as well as the
info and their supporting documents. And, if she had
some doubts as to the existence of probable cause,
the rules required her to order the investigating
prosecutor to present additional evidence to support
the finding of probable cause within five days from
notice.
Rather than take limited action, Judge Yadao adopted
Ombudsman's findings when the latter conducted the
prelim investigation back in 1996. Prosecution argues
that the new affidavits submitted explained the prior
inconsistencies before the Ombudsman
Gen. Rul: judge is not required, when determining
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
arrests, to conduct a de novo hearing. The judge only
needs to personally review the initial determination of
the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is
supported by substantial evidence
In this case, prosecution submitted their own
witnesses to explain the inconsistent statements r
submitted to the Ombudsman. Consequently, it was
not unreasonable for Judge Yadao, for the purpose of
determining probable cause based on those
affidavits, to hold a hearing and examine the
inconsistent statements and related documents that
the witnesses themselves brought up and were part
of the records. Besides, she received no new
evidence from the respondents.
The court agrees that the 7 affidavits and documents
submitted below failed to establish probable cause:
1. P/Insp Yu - was ordered to form 2 teams to
apprehend members of the gang. They turned
over the members to the investigating unit.
They learned afterwards that the men were
killed
2. P/Insp Ramos - Part of the perimeter defense
during the apprehension of the suspects. The
men were killed in a shoot out which was
cleared with higher authorities (Lacson
approved)
3. SPO1 Medes - corroborated Ramos'
statement. He drove the van where the
suspects were boarded to Commonwealth.
4. Enad - TMC civilian agent who conducted the
surveillance. He saw the police shoot the L300
van containing the suspects.
5. SPO2 Seno - Part of the advance party and was
also in commonwealth. He corroborated
Ramos' statement
6. PNP ABRITG After operations report -
submitted by Lacson
7. PNP Medico-Legal Reports - suspected
members tested negative for gunpowder.
Reason why these failed:
1. Case rests on testimony of Ramos,
corroborated by Medes, Enad, and Seno, who
supposedly heard the plan and saw the killing
2. Based on their affidavit and the After Ops
report, they did not took part in the operations.
Only Yu's name was listed, but he testified that
he did not see the killing
3. Ramos new affidavit is inconsistent with the
one he submitted in Ombudsman where he
claimed that he was not in Superville or in
Commonwealth, but was actually in Bulacan.
4. Ombudsman, looking at the whole picture and
giving credence to Ramos and Medes still
dismissed the robbery case. It also excluded
Ramos form the officers charged with murder.
Yu may be involved but based on his testimony,
his work was limited to arresting the suspects.
5. Medico-Legal Reports cannot have any legal
significance for purposes of prelim investigation
of murder cases against respondents absent
sufficient proof that they probably took part in
gunning the members.
Prosecution claims that rather than dismiss outright,
Judge Yadao should have ordered the panel to
present additional evidence, pursuant to Sec 6, Rule
112.This gives trial court 3options upon the filing of
the criminal information:
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
failed to establish probable cause;
(2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause;
and
(3) order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt
as to the existence of probable cause.
But the option to order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence is not mandatory. The court's first
option under the above is for it to "immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails 3. the Order dated January 21, 2004 which denied
to establish probable cause." That is the situation the motion to recuse and the urgent supplemental
here: the evidence on record clearly fails to establish motion for compulsory disqualification;
probable cause against the respondents. It is only "in
case of doubt on the existence of probable cause" 4. the Order dated January 22, 2004 which denied
that the judge may order the prosecutor to present the motion for reconsideration of the Order dated
additional evidence within ve days from notice. But November 12, 2003; and
that is not the case here.
5. the Order dated January 26, 2004 which denied
Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Family Court
the motion for reconsideration of the January 16,
The Court is not impervious to the provisions of
2004 Order.
Section 5 of R.A. 8369, that vests in family courts
jurisdiction over violations of R.A. 7610, which in turn
covers murder cases where the victim is a minor but
in vesting in family courts exclusive original
jurisdiction, the law seeks to protect the minor's
welfare and best interests.

In this case, the minor victims for whose interests the

people wanted the murder cases moved to a family
court, are dead. There is no living minor here that
requires the special attention and protection of the
family court.

Issue 3: Inhibition of Judge

Here, the prosecution contends that Judge Yadao
should have inhibited herself for improperly
submitting to a public interview on the day following
her dismissal of the criminal cases against the
respondents. But the Court finds nothing basically
reprehensible in such interview. Judge Yadao's
dismissal of the multiple murder cases aroused
natural public interest and stirred the media into
frenzy for correct information. Judge Yadao simply
accommodated, not sought, the requests for such an
interview

IV. DISPOSITIVE:

the Court DISMISSES this petition and AFFIRMS

the following assailed Orders of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 in Criminal Cases
01- 101102 to 12:

1. the Order dated November 12, 2003 which denied

the prayer for re- raffle, granted the motions for
determination of probable cause, and dismissed the
criminal cases;

2. the Order dated January 16, 2004 which granted

the motion of the respondents for the immediate
resolution of the three pending incidents before the
court;