Ocampo v.

Abando (2014)
GR No. 176830
February 11, 2014

FACTS:
A mass graveyard was found at, Inopacan, Leyte by the 43rd Infantry Brigade containing 67
skeletal remains of those believed to be victims of Operation Venereal Disease (VD) by the
Communist Party of the Philippines/ NPA /National Democratic Front of the Philippines. This
was done to purge their ranks of suspected military informers.

Members of the SOCO conducted forensic crime analysis to identify the bodies by way of DNA
sample. The initial report of the PNP Crime Laboratory on their identities remained inconclusive,
but, in a Special Report, it came up with ten names of possible victims after comparing the
testimonies of relatives and witnesses.

Police Chief Inspector Almaden and Staff Judge Advocate Captain Tiu sent undated letters to
Prosecutor Vivero, requesting for legal action on the twelve attached complaint- affidavits. These
were from relatives of the alleged victims of Operation VD who all swore that their relatives had
been abducted or last seen with members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.

Charging them with murder, the affidavits were directed to 71 named members of the group,
including the petitioners. Namely, the petitioners were Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad
who were all pointed out to be members of the Central Committee that ordered the campaign to
be carried out in 1985.

On this basis, Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring them to submit their counter-
affidavits and Ocampo complied. However, Echanis and Baylosis did not do so because
allegedly they were not served the copy of a subpoena. As for Ladlad, though his counsel made
formal appearance during the preliminary investigation, he also did not submit for the same
reason as the two.

Prosecutor Vivero, in a resolution, directed the filing of information for 15 counts of multiple
murder against the 54 named members, including the petitioners. He also caused some
respondents to be used as state witnesses for their testimony is vital to the prosecution. Said
information was filed before RTC Hilongos, Leyte presided by Judge Abando. Prior to receiving
the resolution, Ocampo filed an Ex Parte Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Hearing.

RTC Ruling: issued warrant of arrest

Judge Abando issued an Order finding probable cause "in the commission by all mentioned
accused of the crime charged." He ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against them with
no recommended bail for their temporary liberty.

Ocampo went to the Supreme Court by way of special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 and asked for the abovementioned order and the prosecutors resolution to be
annulled. He said that a case for rebellion against him and 44 others was then already pending
before RTC Makati and so, the crime of murder was absorbed by the rebellion in line with the
political offense doctrine.

SC Ruling: set the case for oral arguments and granted the request of DOJ Secretary to transfer
the venue of the case

SC ordered the Solicitor General to comment on the issue and also ordered the parties to submit
their memoranda. From the oral arguments, the Court found that the single Information charging
them all of 15 counts of murder was defective. The prosecution moved to admit amended and
new information, but Judge Abando suspended the proceedings during the pendency of the case
before the Court.

Meanwhile, Echanis was arrested and he, along with Baylosis, filed a Motion for Judicial
Reinvestigation/ Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright and
Alternative Prayer to Recall/ Suspend Service of Warrant, but it was dismissed by Judge Abando.
Around this time, Ladlad filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss with the RTC Manila.

Echanis and Baylosis moved to reconsider but it was not acted because, as per request of the
DOJ Secretary to change the venue of the trial, the records were transmitted to RTC Manila.
Echanis and Baylosis continued to seek relief from the SC in response to Judge Abandos orders.
Echanis also prayed for his release.

Both Ocampo and Echanis were granted provisional release by the Supreme Court under cash
bonds. As to Ladlads Motion to Quash, it was denied by respondent judge and the same
happened to his Motion for Reconsideration. Ladlad sought to annul the latters orders by way of
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. As to their bail, Ladlad filed an Urgent Motion to
Fix Bail whereas Baylosis filed a Motion to Allow Petitioner to Post Bail which were granted,
with no opposition from the OSG (because theyre consultants of the NDFP negotiating team,
then having talks with the GRP peace panel).

ISSUE: WON the murder charge against him are already included in the rebellion charge against
him in the RTC NO

HELD:
The political offense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the charge against petitioners prior to a
determination by the trial court that the murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion.

Under this doctrine, common crimes committed in the furtherance of a political offense, are
divested of its common character and assume the political complexion of the main crime. Thus,
when the killing is done in furtherance of a rebellion, it assumes the political complexion of a
rebellion and it must be prosecuted as rebellion alone.

However, this is not to say that public prosecutors are obliged to consistently charge respondents
with simple rebellion instead of common crimes. No one disputes the wellentrenched principle in
criminal procedure that the institution of criminal charges, including whom and what to charge,
is addressed to the sound discretion of the public prosecutor.
But when the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense in the trial court, it becomes
crucial for the court to determine whether the act of killing was done in furtherance of a political
end, and for the political motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated.

Petitioners say that records show the murders were done in furtherance of rebellion and that the
political motivation can be seen from the charge against the groups top leaders as co-
conspirators. The burden of proof is on the defense and this must be adduced during the trial.

If during trial, petitioners are able to show that the alleged murders were indeed committed in
furtherance of rebellion, Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy, to
wit:

SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended, in

form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After
the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or
excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its
reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the
offended party. (n)

If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense in accordance with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall
not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial.

Thus, if it is shown that the proper charge against petitioners should have been simple rebellion,
the trial court shall dismiss the murder charges upon the filing of the Information for simple
rebellion, as long as petitioners would not be placed in double jeopardy.

To recall, an Information for the crime of rebellion was filed before the RTC Makati against
petitioners and several others. However, petitioners were never arraigned.

WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are DISMISSED.