SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 131492. September 29, 2000]

ROGER POSADAS, ROSARIO TORRES-Y , !"# $ARI%& 'A$(INO, petitioners, vs. T&E &ON. O$( DS$AN, T&E SPE%IA' PROSE% TOR, !"# OR'ANDO ). DI*ON, respondents. DE%ISION
$ENDO*A, J.+

Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the University of the Philippines, as !ille" in a rumble bet een his fraternity an" another fraternity on De#ember $, %&&'( In a letter "ate" De#ember %%, %&&', petitioner Roger Posa"as, then Chan#ellor of U(P( Diliman in )ue*on City, as!e" the Dire#tor of the National +ureau of Investigation for assistan#e in "etermining the persons responsible for the #rime( In response to the re,uest, respon"ent Orlan"o V( Di*on, Chief of the Spe#ial Operations -roup of the N+I, an" his men ent to U(P( on De#ember %. an", on the basis of the suppose" positive i"entifi#ation of t o allege" eye itnesses, /ean"ro /a#hi#a an" Cesar 0angrobang, 1r(, attempte" to arrest 2ran#is Carlo 3aparan an" Raymun"o Narag, offi#ers4members of the S#intilla 1uris 2raternity, as suspe#ts in the !illing of Venturina( It appears that the t o suspe#ts ha" #ome that "ay to the U(P( Poli#e Station for a pea#e tal! bet een their fraternity an" the Sigma Rho 2raternity( Petitioners Posa"as, 0ari#hu /ambino, an" Rosario 3orres56u, also of U(P(, an" a #ertain 7tty( Villamor, #ounsel for the suspe#ts, ob8e#te" on the groun" that the N+I "i" not have arrants of arrest ith them( Posa"as an" 7tty( Villamor promise" to ta!e the suspe#ts to the N+I Offi#e the ne9t "ay( 7s a result of their intervention, 3aparan an" Narag ere not arreste" by the N+I agents on that "ay( :%; <o ever, #riminal #harges ere file" later against the t o stu"ent suspe#ts(:.; Di*on then file" a #omplaint in the Offi#e of the Spe#ial Prose#utor, #harging petitioners Posa"as, 3orres56u, /ambino, Col( E"uar"o +entain, Chief of the Se#urity 2or#e of the U(P( Poli#e, an" 7tty( Villamor ith violation of P(D( %$.&, :=; hi#h ma!es it unla ful for anyone to obstru#t the apprehension an" prose#ution of #riminal offen"ers( On 0ay %$, %&&>, an information:'; as file" against them, alleging that?

That on or about December 12, 1994 and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and ithin the !urisdiction of this "onorable Court, abo#e$ named accused, namely% &'()& P'*+D+*, Chancellor, &'*+&-' ./ $ 0ice

Chancellor, +TT.1 2+&-C"/ 3+24-5' $ +sst1 3e6al Counsel, and C'31 )D/+&D' 4)5T+-5 $ Chief, *ecurity 7orce, all of the /ni#ersity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, all public officers, hile in the performance of their respecti#e official functions, ta8in6 ad#anta6e of their official duties and committin6 the crime in relation to their office, conspirin6 and confederatin6 ith each other and ith a certain +TT.1 0-33+2'&, did then and there ilfully, 8no in6ly and criminally obstruct, impede and frustrate the apprehension of 7&+5C-* C+&3' T+P+&+5 and &+.2/5D' 5+&+(, both principal suspects in#ol#ed in the brutal 8illin6 of D)55-* 0)5T/&-5+, a /1P1 6raduatin6 student and Chairperson of the /P Colle6e of +dministration, *tudent Council, and delayin6 the in#esti6ation and prosecution of the said heinous case by harborin6 and concealin6 said suspects thus, leadin6 to the successful escape of suspects 5ara6 and another principal suspect 9')3 C+&3' D)5'*T+, that said abo#e acts ere done by the abo#e$named accused public officials despite their full 8no led6e that said suspects ere implicated in the brutal slayin6 of said Dennis 0enturina, thus pre#entin6 the suspects arrest, prosecution and con#iction1 C'5T&+&. T' 3+:1
/ater, on motion of petitioners, the Spe#ial Prose#utor@s Offi#e re#ommen"e" the "ismissal of the #ase( +ut the re#ommen"ation as "isapprove"( In a memoran"um, "ate" September $, %&&A, the Offi#e of the Ombu"sman "ire#te" the Spe#ial Prose#utor to pro#ee" ith the prose#ution of petitioners in the San"iganbayan( <en#e this petition for certiorari an" prohibition to set asi"e the resolution of the Ombu"sman@s offi#e or"ering the prose#ution of petitioners( Petitioners #onten" that?
I( 3<E <ONOR7+/E O0+UDS07N CO00I33ED -R7VE 7+USE O2 DISCRE3ION B<EN <E RU/ED 3<73? %C S3UDEN3S COU/D +E 7RRES3ED BI3<OU3 B7RR7N3 ON 0ERE SUSPICIOND .C PD %$.& INC/UDES 7RRES3S BI3<OU3 B7RR7N3S ON 0ERE SUSPICIOND 7ND B<EN <E REVERSED 3<E 2INDIN-S 7ND RESO/U3ION O2 3<E SPECI7/ PROSECU3ION O22ICER, 3<E DEPU36 SPECI7/ PROSECU3OR 7ND 3<E SPECI7/ PROSECU3OR, B<O CONDUC3ED 3<E REINVES3I-73ION O2 3<E C7SED 7ND 2IN7//6 B<EN <E RESO/VED 3<73 PE3I3IONERS S<OU/D +E SU+1EC3ED 3O PU+/IC 3RI7/ B<EN 3<ERE IS NO PRO+7+/E C7USE 7ND NO +7SIS(

II( SEC3ION %, P7R7-R7P< C O2 PRESIDEN3I7/ DECREE NO( %$.& IS UNCONS3I3U3ION7/(:>; 3 o issues are raise" in this #ase, to it? E%C Bhether the attempte" arrest of the stu"ent suspe#ts by the N+I #oul" be vali"ly ma"e ithout a arrantD an" E.C Bhether there as probable #ause for prose#uting petitioners for violation of P(D( No( %$.&( Be ans er these ,uestions in the negative(

,-r.t. In vie of 7rt( III, F. of the Constitution, the rule is that no arrest may be ma"e e9#ept by virtue of a arrant issue" by a 8u"ge after e9amining the #omplainant an" the itnesses he may pro"u#e an" after fin"ing probable #ause to believe that the person to be arreste" has #ommitte" the #rime( 3he e9#eptions hen an arrest may be ma"e even ithout a arrant are provi"e" in Rule %%=, F> of the Rules of Criminal Pro#e"ure hi#h rea"s?

;a< :hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committin6, or is attemptin6 to commit an offense, ;b< :hen an offense has in fact !ust been committed, and he has personal 8no led6e of the facts indicatin6 that the person to be arrested has committed it, ;c< :hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place here he is ser#in6 final !ud6ment or temporarily confined hile his case is pendin6, or has escaped hile bein6 transferred from one confinement to another1
3here is no ,uestion that this #ase "oes not fall un"er paragraphs EaC an" E#C( 3he arresting offi#ers in this #ase "i" not itness the #rime being #ommitte"( Neither are the stu"ents fugitives from 8usti#e nor prisoners ho ha" es#ape" from #onfinement( 3he ,uestion is hether paragraph EbC applies be#ause a #rime ha" 8ust been #ommitte" an" the N+I agents ha" personal !no le"ge of fa#ts in"i#ating that Narag an" 3aparan ere probably guilty( Respon"ents #onten" that the N+I agents ha" personal !no le"ge of fa#ts gathere" by them in the #ourse of their investigation in"i#ating that the stu"ents sought to be arreste" ere the perpetrators of the #rime( :G; 3hey invo!e the ruling in People v. Tonog, Jr(:A; in hi#h it as hel"?

-t may be that the police officers ere not armed ith a arrant hen they apprehended +ccused$appellant1 The arrantless arrest, ho e#er, as !ustified under *ection = ;b<, &ule 1>> (sic) of the 19?= &ules of Criminal Procedure pro#idin6 that a peace officer may, ithout a arrant, arrest a person @ hen an offense has in fact !ust been committed and he has personal 8no led6e of facts indicatin6 that the person to be arrested has committed it1@ -n this case, Pat1 3e6uarda, in effectin6 the arrest of +ccused$appellant, had 8no led6e of facts 6athered by him personally in the course of his in#esti6ation indicatin6 that +ccused$appellant as one of the perpetrators1
In that #ase, the a##use" voluntarily ent upon invitation of the poli#e offi#er ho later noti#e" the presen#e of bloo" stains on the pants of the a##use"( Upon rea#hing the poli#e station, the a##use" as as!e" to ta!e off his pants for e9amination at the #rime laboratory( 3he ,uestion in that #ase involve" the a"missibility of the maong pants ta!en from the a##use"( It is #lear that Tonog "oes not apply to this #ase( 2irst, the a##use" in that #ase voluntarily ent ith the poli#e upon the latter@s

invitation( Se#on", the arresting offi#er foun" bloo" stains on the pants of the a##use", on the basis of hi#h he #on#lu"e" that the a##use" probably #ommitte" the #rime for hi#h reason the latter as ta!en into #usto"y(3hir", the arrest as ma"e on the same "ay the #rime as #ommitte"( In the or"s of Rule %%=, F>EbC, the #rime ha" H8ust been #ommitte"H an" the arresting offi#er ha" Hpersonal !no le"ge of the fa#ts in"i#ating that the person to be arreste" ha" #ommitte" it(H In #ontrast, the N+I agents in the #ase at bar trie" to arrest Narag an" 3aparan four "ays after the #ommission of the #rime( 3hey ha" no personal !no le"ge of any fa#t hi#h might in"i#ate that the t o stu"ents ere probably guilty of the #rime( Bhat they ha" ere the suppose" positive i"entifi#ation of t o allege" eye itnesses, hi#h is insuffi#ient to 8ustify the arrest ithout a arrant by the N+I( Be have alrea"y e9plaine" the arresting offi#ers? hat #onstitutes Hpersonal !no le"geH on the part of

@Personal 8no led6e@ of facts in arrests ithout a arrant under *ection = ;b< of &ule 11> must be based upon @probable cause@ hich means an @actual belief or reasonable 6rounds of suspicion1@ The 6rounds of suspicion are reasonable hen, in the absence of actual belief of the arrestin6 officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably 6uilty of committin6 the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently stron6 in themsel#es to create the probable cause of 6uilt of the person to be arrested1 + reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled ith 6ood faith on the part of the peace officers ma8in6 the arrest1A?B
In"ee", at the time Dennis Venturina as !ille", these agents ere no here near the s#ene of the #rime( Bhen respon"ent Di*on an" his men attempte" to arrest 3aparan an" Narag, the latter ere not #ommitting a #rime nor ere they "oing anything that oul" #reate the suspi#ion that they ere "oing anything illegal( On the #ontrary, 3aparan an" Narag, un"er the supervision of the U(P( poli#e, ere ta!ing part in a pea#e tal! #alle" to put an en" to the violen#e on the #ampus( 3o allo the arrest hi#h the N+I inten"e" to ma!e ithout arrant oul" in effe#t allo them to supplant the #ourts( 3he "etermination of the e9isten#e of probable #ause that the persons to be arreste" #ommitte" the #rime as for the 8u"ge to ma!e( 3he la authori*es a poli#e offi#er or even an or"inary #iti*en to arrest #riminal offen"ers only if the latter are #ommitting or have 8ust #ommitte" a #rime( Other ise, e #annot leave to the poli#e offi#ers the "etermination of hom to apprehen" if e are to prote#t our #ivil liberties( 3his is evi"ent from a #onsi"eration of the re,uirements before a 8u"ge #an or"er the arrest of suspe#ts( 7rt( III, F. of the Constitution provi"es?

The ri6ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects a6ainst unreasonable searches and seizures of hate#er nature and for any purpose shall be in#iolable, and no search arrant or arrant of arrest shall issue eCcept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the !ud6e after eCamination under oath

or affirmation of the complainant and the itnesses he may produce, and particularly describin6 the place to be searched and the persons or thin6s to be seized1
2or the failure of the N+I agents to #omply ith #onstitutional an" pro#e"ural re,uirements, e hol" that their attempt to arrest 3aparan an" Narag ithout a arrant as illegal( Se/o"#. In or"ering the prose#ution of petitioners for violation of P(D( No( %$.&, F%E#C, the Offi#e of the Ombu"sman state" in its memoran"um "ate" September $, %&&A?

7rom the facts adduced, it is submitted that respondents had reasonable 6round to suspect that the *9 members sou6ht to be arrested participated in the clubbin6 of Dennis 0enturina, e#entually leadin6 to the latterDs demise1 -t must be remembered that these *9 members ere positi#ely identified by t o eye itnesses1 + reasonably prudent mind could not !ust i6nore this positi#e identification1 -n fact, respondents do not dispute the identification made on the alle6ed participants in the clubbin6 of Dennis 0enturina1 &espondent /1P1 officials !ustify their act of barrin6 the apprehendin6 officers from arrestin6 the *9 members on the 6round that the arrantless arrest sou6ht to be effected did not conform ith *ec1 =, &ule 11> of the &ules of Court, thereby a#ertin6, hat ould be in their opinion, an ille6al arrest1 :hile this !ustification may, at best, sho their 6ood faith, it does not detract from the fact that they had reasonable 6round to suspect that the *9 members sou6ht to be arrested committed the heinous crime of murder as a result of the positi#e identification made by t o eye itnesses1 4esides, the reliance on the alle6ed ille6ality of the arrest !ust sho s the clear intent, on respondentsD part, to ilfully obstruct, frustrate or, at the least, delay the apprehension and in#esti6ation and prosecution of the *9 members positi#ely identified1 To be sure, respondents 8ne fully ell that inquest proceedin6s follo arrantless arrests1 -t is in this forum here the prosecutor conductin6 the inquest may rule on their opinion on hether or not the arrantless arrest effected as #alid, he ha#in6 the quasi!udicial authority to rule on this matter1 'f course, there are #arious remedies under the la hich respondents may ha#e li8e ise a#ailed of or resorted to in order to secure the liberty of the *9 members had the latter been arrested, ithout pre!udice to any criminal or administrati#e actions that they may ha#e filed a6ainst the arrestin6 54- a6ents1 "o e#er, it appears that they too8 the la into their o n hands in a manner that obstructed and delayed the in#esti6ation bein6 conducted by a la enforcement a6ency li8e the 54-1 They facilitated the escape of the t o *9 members pinpointed by eye itnesses as amon6 those ho clubbed to death Dennis 0enturina1 A9B

3he ,uestion is not hether petitioners ha" reasonable groun"s to believe that the suspe#ts ere guilty( 3he ,uestion is hether the suspe#ts #oul" be arreste" even in the absen#e of a arrant issue" by a #ourt, #onsi"ering that, as alrea"y e9plaine", the attempte" arrest "i" not fall un"er any of the #ases provi"e" in Rule %%=, F>( Regar"less of their suspi#ion, petitioners #oul" not very ell have authori*e" the arrest ithout arrant of the stu"ents or even effe#te" the arrest themselves( Only #ourts #oul" "e#i"e the ,uestion of probable #ause sin#e the stu"ents ere not being arreste" in flagrante delicto( 7s the Spe#ial Prose#utor state" in his memoran"um, "ate" 0ay %$, %&&>, in re#ommen"ing the "ismissal of the #ase against petitioners?

+ll told, the e#idence adduced in this case do not sho that on the ni6ht of December 12, 1994, the accused 8ne or had reasonable 6round to belie#e that the students ho ere then at the /1P1 police headquarters had committed a crime1 5either ere the arrantless arrest bein6 sou6ht to be made on campus that ni6ht, le6al1 The /1P1 officials then present had e#ery ri6ht to pre#ent the commission of ille6al arrests of students on campus1 4ased on all the fore6oin6, the ob#ious conclusion is that, there is no probable cause to char6e Posadas, Torres$.u, 3ambino, 4entain and +tty1 0illamor of #iolatin6 *ection 1;c< of P1D1 1?291 Probable cause is defined as @sufficient 6round to en6ender a ell founded belief that a crime co6nizable by the court has been committed and that the respondents are probably 6uilty thereof and should be held for trial@ ;*ection 1, &ule 12, &ules of Court<1 The absence of an arrest arrant, the absence of 8no led6e or reasonable 6round on the part of the accused to belie#e that the students had committed a crime, the absence of any la punishin6 refusal to attend an in#esti6ation at the 54-, all sho that there is no sufficient 6round to char6e the accused ith 'bstruction of 9ustice1 'n the contrary, the circumstances sho that the accused, in safe6uardin6 the ri6hts of students, ere actin6 ithin the bounds of la 1
A1EB

T0-r#( Petitioners are being prose#ute" un"er the follo ing provision of P(D( No( %$.&?

*)C1 11 The penalty of prision correccional in its maCimum period, or a fine ran6in6 from 1,EEE to F,EEE pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person ho 8no in6ly or ilfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the in#esti6ation and prosecution of criminal cases by committin6 any of the follo in6 acts% 1111

;c< harborin6 or concealin6, or facilitatin6 the escape of, any person he 8no s, or has reasonable 6round to belie#e or suspect, has committed any offense under eCistin6 penal la s in order to pre#ent his arrest, prosecution and con#iction,
3he rule, of #ourse, is that a #riminal prose#ution #annot be en8oine"( :%%; +ut as has been hel", H:i;nfinitely more important than #onventional a"heren#e to general rules of #riminal pro#e"ure is respe#t for the #iti*en@s right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest an" punishment but also from un arrante" an" ve9atious prose#ution(H :%.; 7s e hel" in the similar #ase of Venus v. Desierto?:%=;

Conformably ith the 6eneral rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained either throu6h a preliminary or final in!unction or a rit of prohibition, this Court ordinarily does not interfere ith the discretion of the 'mbudsman to determine hether there eCists reasonable 6round to belie#e that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably 6uilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the correspondin6 information ith the appropriate courts1 There are, ho e#er, settled eCceptions to this rule, such as those enumerated in Brocka v. Enrile, to it% a1 To afford protection to the constitutional ri6hts of the accused ;"ernandez #s1 +lbano, et al1 3$192G2, 9anuary 2=, 19FG, 19 *C&+ 9=<, b1 :hen necessary for the orderly administration of !ustice or to a#oid oppression or multiplicity of actions ;Dimayu6a, et al1 #s1 7ernandez, 4> Phil1 >E4, "ernandez #s1 +lbano, supra, 7ortun #s1 3aban6, et al1, 3$>?>?>, 2ay 2G, 19?1, 1E4 *C&+ FEG<, c1 :hen there is a pre!udicial question hich is sub !udice ;De 3eon #s1 2abana6, GE Phil1 2E2<, d1 :hen the acts of the officer are ithout or in eCcess of authority ;Planas #s1 (il, FG Phil1 F2<, e1 :here the prosecution is under an in#alid la , ordinance or re6ulation ;.oun6 #s1 &afferty, >> Phil1 ==F, .u Con6 )n6 #s1 Trinidad, 4G Phil1 >?=, >?9<, f1 :hen double !eopardy is clearly apparent ;*an6alan6 #s1 People and +l#endia, 1E9 Phil1 114E<, 61 :here the court has no !urisdiction o#er the offense ;3opez #s1 City 9ud6e, 3$ 2=G9=, 'ctober 29, 19FF, 1? *C&+ F1F<, h1 :here it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution ;&ustia #s1 'campo, C+$ (1&1 5o1 4GFE, 2arch 2=, 19FE<,

i1 :here the char6es are manifestly false and moti#ated by the lust for #en6eance ;&ecto #s1 Castelo, 1? 3191 ;19=><, cited in &aHoa #s1 +l#endia, C+ (1&1 5o1 >EG2E$ &, 'ctober ?, 19F2, Cf1 (uin6ona, et al1 #s1 City 7iscal, 3$FEE>>, +pril 4, 19?4, 12? *C&+ =GG<, !1 :here there is clearly no prima facie case a6ainst the accused and a motion to quash on that 6round has been denied ;*alon6a #s1 PaHo, et al1, 3$=9=24, 7ebruary 1?, 19?=, 1>4 *C&+ 4>?<, and 81 Preliminary in!unction has been issued by the *upreme Court to pre#ent the threatened unla ful arrest of petitioners ;&odri6uez #s1 Castelo, 3$ F>G4, +u6ust 1, 19=>< cited in &e6alado, &emedial 3a Compendium, p1 1??, 19?? )d1<
In this #ase, petitioners@ ob8e#tion to the arrest of the stu"ents #annot be #onstrue" as a violation of P(D( No( %$.&, F%E#C ithout ren"ering it un#onstitutional( Petitioners ha" a right to prevent the arrest of 3aparan an" Narag at the time be#ause their attempte" arrest as illegal( In"ee", they #oul" not have interfere" ith the prose#ution of the guilty parties be#ause in fa#t petitioner Posa"as ha" as!e" the N+I for assistan#e in investigating the "eath of Venturina( On the other han", 8ust be#ause petitioners ha" as!e" for assistan#e from the N+I "i" not authori*e respon"ent Di*on an" his men to "isregar" #onstitutional re,uirements( 3he Offi#e of the Ombu"sman, ho ever, foun" that the intervention by petitioners resulte" in the es#ape of the stu"ent suspe#ts as petitioner Posa"as an" 7tty( Villamor faile" in their un"erta!ing to surren"er the stu"ents the follo ing "ay( :%'; <en#e, the information against them #harge" that petitioners illfully obstru#te" the apprehension of the suspe#ts 3aparan an" Narag, lea"ing to the su##essful es#ape of these stu"ents an" another prin#ipal suspe#t, a #ertain 1oel Carlo Denosta( :%>; 3he stu"ent suspe#t mentione" by both the resolution "ate" 0ay %$, %&&> an" the information, a #ertain 1oel Carlo Denosta, as not one of the stu"ents hose arrest by the N+I agents petitioners prevente" on De#ember %., %&&'( 0oreover, hether or not petitioner Posa"as surren"ere" the stu"ent suspe#ts to the N+I agents the follo ing "ay is immaterial( In the first pla#e, they ere not sureties or bon"smen ho #oul" be hel" to their un"erta!ing( In the se#on" pla#e, the fa#t remains that the N+I agents #oul" not have vali"ly arreste" 3aparan an" Narag at the U(P( Poli#e Station as they "i" not have a arrant at that time( <en#e, only the N+I agents themselves #oul" be faulte" for their inability to arrest 3aparan an" Narag( If the N+I believe" the information given to them by the suppose" eye itnesses, the N+I shoul" have applie" for a arrant before ma!ing the attempte" arrest instea" of ta!ing the la into their o n han"s( 3hat they #hose not to an" ere prevente" from ma!ing an arrest for la#! of a arrant is their responsibility alone( Petitioners #oul" not be hel" a##ountable therefor( Be un"erstan" that the highly publi#i*e" "eath of Dennis Venturina #ause" a publi# #lamor to bring to 8usti#e those responsible therefor( Be also re#ogni*e the pressures fa#e" by la enfor#ement agen#ies to effe#t imme"iate arrests an" pro"u#e results ithout unne#essary "elay( +ut it must be remembere" that the nee" to enfor#e the la

#annot be 8ustifie" by sa#rifi#ing #onstitutional rights( 3he absen#e of probable #ause for the filing of an information against petitioners is evi"ent from the re#or"s( 3hey #annot be in"i#te" be#ause they "are" to uphol" the rights of the stu"ents( <en#e, e see no other re#ourse but to en8oin the San"iganbayan an" the Ombu"sman from pro#ee"ing ith the #ase against petitioners( ,o1rt0. 3he #on#lusion e have thus far rea#he" ma!es it unne#essary to #onsi"er petitioners@ #hallenge to P(D( No( %$.&, F%E#C( 2or a #ar"inal rule of #onstitutional a"8u"i#ation is that the Court ill not pass upon a #onstitutional ,uestion although properly presente" by the re#or" if the #ase #an be "ispose" of on some other groun" su#h as the appli#ation of a statute or general la ( :%G; 2&ERE,ORE, the petition is -R7N3ED an" the Ombu"sman an" his agents are hereby prohibite" from prose#uting petitioners for violation of P(D( No( %$.& F%E#C as a result of the in#i"ent #omplaine" of in Criminal Case No( ..$I% an" the San"iganbayan is ORDERED to "ismiss the information in Criminal Case No( ..$I% against petitioners( SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisum ing, Buena, an" De !eon, Jr., JJ., #on#ur(

:%; :.; :=; :'; :>; :G; :A; :$; :&;

7nne9 7D 0emoran"um "ate" 0ay %$, %&&>, p( .D "ollo, p( =$( Resolution "ate" 7ug( ', %&&A, p( >D "ollo, p( >.( 7nne9 7D 0emoran"um "ate" 0ay %$, %&&>, p( %D "ollo, p( =A( 7nne9 CD "ollo, pp( '>5'G( Petition, pp( A5$D "ollo, pp( &5%I( Comment, p( %.D "ollo, p( $%( .I> SCR7 AA., AA$ E%&&.C( People v( Doria, =I% SCR7 GG$, AI& E%&&%C( 7nne9 +D 0emoran"um "ate" September $, %&&A, pp( .5=D "ollo, pp( '=5''( Resolution "ate" 7ugust ', %&&A, pp( G5&D "ollo, pp( >=5>G( Salonga v( Cru* PaJo, %=' SCR7 '=$ E%&$>C( #d., p( ''$( .&$ SCR7 %&G, .%'5.%> E%&&$C( Resolution "ate" 0ay %$, %&&>, p( .D "ollo, p( =$( "ollo, pp( '>5'G( 3y v( 3rampe, =.% Phil( $% E%&&>C(

:%I; :%%; :%.; :%=; :%'; :%>; :%G;