SERAPIO VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN 396 SCRA 443 Facts: Petitioner Edward Serapio was a member of the Board of Trustees an the legal counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. Sometime 2000, petitioner received on its behalf a donation in the amount of Php 200M through Chavit Singson. Petitioner received he donation worth the Foundations account. In 2000, Chavit Singson publicly accused President Estrada and his family members and friends of engaging in several illegal activities which triggered the filing with the Office of the Ombudsman several criminal complaints against the petitioner, Joseph Estrada and his son. On April 4, 2001, Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan Informations against the former president, one of which, for plunder. No bail was recommended for the provisional release of all the accused including the petitioner. The case was raffled to a special division which was subsequently created by the Supreme Court. On 25 April 2001, Sandiganbayan issued a resolution finding probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants of arrest for the accused. Arraignment was set on 27 January 2001. In the meantime, petitioner filed with Sandiganbayan an Urgent Petition for bail, which was set for hearing on May 4, 2001. Petitioners co-accused Jinggoy Estrada filed a motion alleging that he was entitle to bail as a matter of right. During the hearing on May 4, 2001 on petitioners Urgent Petition for Bail, the prosecution moved for the resetting of the arraignment of the accused earlier than the June 27 schedule. However, Sandiganbayan denied the motion of the prosecution and issued an order declaring that the petition for bail can and should be heard BEFORE petitioners arraignment on 27 June. On June 1, Sandiganbayan issued a resolution requiring the attendance of petitioner as well as all the other accused during the hearing on the petitioner for bail considering that under Section 8, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Court, whatever evidence adduced during the hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial. The people insist that arraignment is necessary before bail hearings may be commenced because it is only upon arraignment that the issues are joined. The people further stress the it is only when an accused pleads not guilty may he filed a petition for bail and if he pleads guilty, then there would be no need for him to file said petition. It is also the contention of the people that it is only during arraignment that the accused is informed of the precise charge against him. He must then be arraign first prior to bail hearings to prevent him from late on assailing the validity of the bail hearings on the ground that he was not properly informed of the charge considering that under section 8 of Rule 114, evidence presented during bail hearings are reproduce in the trial. Arraignment before bail hearings also diminished the possibility of accuseds flight since trial in absentia may be had only if an accused escapes after he has been arraigned.

However, the bail hearing again did not proceed because the petitioner filed with the information a motion to quash the amended information on the grounds that as against him, the amended information does not allege a combination of series of over or criminal acts constitutive of plunder. According to the prosecution, the motion to quash the amended information was antithetical to his petition for bail. Petitioner also prays for the issuance of habeas corpus. Issues: (a) (b) (c) (d) Decision:

W/N petitioner should first be arraigned before hearings of his petition for bail may be conducted. W/N petitioner may file a motion to quash the amended Information during the pendency of his petition for bail. W/N a joint hearing of petition for bail for all the accused is mandatory W/N petitioner should instead be released through a writ of habeas corpus.

(a) Although the petitioner was already arraigned, no plea has yet been entered thereby rendering the issue of whether an arraignment is necessary before the conduct of bail hearings in the petitioners case moot. Nonetheless, the court held that arraignment of an accused is not a pre-requisite to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. In Lavides vs. CA, the court ruled that in cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. However, this

pronouncement should not be taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for bail should at all times precede arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as he is deprived of liberty even before a complaint or information is filed against him. The case of Lavides must be understood in light of the fact that the accused in said case filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to quash. Hence, in that case, the court held that to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he had to choose between filing a motion to quash and thus delay his petition for bail and forgoing the filing of the motion to quash so that he can be arraign at once ad therefore be released on bail. Such would undermine the constitutional right of the accused. When a bail is matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail even prior to arraignment. The Lavides case also implies that an application for bail in a case involving an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death may also be heard even before an accused is arraigned. Sandiganbayan therefore committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner before proceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail. (b) Court dins no inconsistency exists between an application of an accused for bail and his filing of a motion to quash. Bail, is the security given for the release of the person in custody of the law. A motion to quash on the other hand is a mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complain filed against him for insufficiency on its fact in posit of law. These tow relied have objectives which are not necessarily antithetical to each other. However, it is true that if a motion to quash a criminal complaint or information on the ground that the same does not charge any offense is granted and the case is dismissed and the accused is ordered released, the petition for bail of an accused may become moot and academic. (c) Petitioner argues that a joint bail hearing would negate his right to have his petition for bail resolved in a summary proceeding since said hearing might be converted into a full blown trial. Prosecution on the other hand claims that joint hearings will save the court form having to hear the same witnesses and the parties from presenting the same evidences. There is no provision in the Rules of Court governing the hearings of two or more petitioner for bail filed by different accused or that a petition for bail of an accused be heard simultaneously with the trial of the case against the other accused. The matter should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the exercise of its discretion, the Sandiganbayan must take into account not only the convenience of the sate, including the prosecution but also that of the petitioner and the witnesses. In the case of Ocampo vs. Bernabe, the court ruled that in a petition or bail hearing, the court is to conduct only a summary hearing, meaning such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is early to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. The court does not try the merits or enter into the inquiry as to the weight that ought to be given to the evidence against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further such evidence as has reference to substantial matters. In the case at bar, the case against former President Estrada is an entirely different matter. For, with the participation of the former president in the hearing of petitioners petition for bail, the proceeding assumes completely different dimension. The proceeding will no longer be summary since the proceedings will be full blown which is antithetical to the nature of a bail hearing. The joinder of the petitioners bail will be prejudicial to the petitioner as it will unduly delay the determination of the issue of the right of petitioner to obtain provisional liberty and seek relief from his court. The Sandiganbayn again committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering a simultaneous hearing of petitioners petition for bail with the trial of the case against former president. (d) In the case at bar, bail is not matter of rights since the accused is charged with a capital offense, but discretionary upon the court. Under Section 8 of rule 114, there must be a showing that the evidence of guilt against a person charged with a capital offense is not strong for the court to grant him bail., thus, upon an application for bail, by the person charged with a capital offense, a hearing must be conducted where the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against an accused is strong. When the evidence of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter of right, which is not so in the case at bar. In exceptional cases, habeas corpus may be granted ny the courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary surrender. The writ may be issued where the deprivation of liberty while initially valid under the lad had not later become invalid. However, there is no basis fir the issuance of the writ in the case at bar. The general rule is that the writ does not lie where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court

which had jurisdiction to issued the same applied, because petitioner is under detention pursuant to the order of arrest. Petitioner in fact voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities. CRESPO VS. MOGUL No L-53373, 151 SCRA 462 (June 30, 1987) Asst Fiscal Proceso de Gala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, filed an information for estafa against Mario Crespo in the circuit criminal court of Lucena City. The accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review with the Sec of Justice. The judge denied it but deferred the arraignment. Upon petition, the CA restrained the judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the DOJ has resolved the petition for review. The Justice Undersecretary directed the fiscal to move for the dismissal of the information for insufficiency of evidence but the judge denied it. The CA issued a TRO but later lifted it. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: WON the TC may refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon order of the Sec of Justice. HELD: Once an information is filed in court, the courts prior permission must be secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Justice Secretary whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the court, the court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper determination of the case. In this regard, the fiscal should continue to appear in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his discretion and control.

CRESPO VS. MOGUL No L-53373, 151 SCRA 462 (June 30, 1987) Facts: Asst Fiscal Proceso de Gala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, filed an information for estafa against Mario Crespo in the circuit criminal court of Lucena City. The accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review with the Sec of Justice. The judge denied it but deferred the arraignment. Upon petition, the CA restrained the judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the DOJ has resolved the petition for review. The Justice Undersecretary directed the fiscal to move for the dismissal of the information for insufficiency of evidence but the judge denied it. The CA issued a TRO but later lifted it. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: W/N the TC may refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon order of the Sec of Justice. HELD: Once an information is filed in court, the courts prior permission must be secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Justice Secretary whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the court, the court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper determination of the case. In this regard, the fiscal should continue to appear in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his discretion and control.

WEBB VS. DE LEON GR 12134, 247 SCRA 652 (Aug 23, 1995) Facts: On 19 June 1994, the NBI filed a letter-complaint with the DOJ charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano and six others of the crime of rape with homicide. The DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Asst. Chief Prosecutor Jovencio Zuno to conduct the preliminary

investigation on the killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela Vizconde, her mother Estrellita and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in BF Homes, Paraaque. In the PI, the NBI submitted sworn statements of Jessica Alfaro, 2 former housemaids of the Webb family, 2 of the Vizconde maids, a security guard, and a car engineer. An autopsy report was also submitted confirming the presence of spermatozoa on Carmela. Before submitting his counter-affidavit, Hubert filed a motion for production of evidences and documents with the DOJ which was granted and the NBI reproduced it. However, the original statement of Alfaro was lost but they were able to get a copy from Atty Mercader, Jr. Hubert failed to get a copy of the FBI report. Hubert claimed that he was in the US at the time of the crime which was corroborated by evidences and testimonies. The same was done by other accused. The DOJ found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information for rape with homicide against the petitioners with the Paraaque RTC which was eventually presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued the arrest warrants. The accused voluntarily surrendered, but in their present petition, they contend that the judge abused their discretion when they failed to conduct a PI before issuing the warrant. ISSUE: W/N the judge should conduct its own PI before issuing a warrant of arrest. W/N there is probable cause for the crime of rape with homicide. W/N the warrant has been properly issued. HELD: The investigating fiscal finds probable cause to hold respondent for trial. He shall prepare the resolution and the information. In determining probable cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical rules of evidences, but rather based on common sense. Probable cause are the facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and was committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidences of guilt. In the case, the DOJ panel did not abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against the petitioners. It correctly adjudged that enough evidences had been adduced to establish cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary since PI is not part of trial. Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. The DOJs report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause to issue such warrants. They do not conduct a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidences. The fiscal need not call the wirnesses for clarificatory questioning if the evidence on hand already yields probable cause. The fact that it took respondent judges a few hours to review and affirm the probable cause determination of the DOJ panel does not mean that they made no personal evaluation of the evidences of the case.

GO VS. CA GR 101837, 206 SCRA 138 (Feb. 11, 1992) Facts: Rolito Gos car nearly collided with the car of Eldon Maguan when the latter entered a one-way street in San Juan, MM. Go went to Maguan and shot him, and then he left. A security guard saw the plate number of Gos car which the police verified that it was registered to Elsa And Go. The police also retrieved an empty shell and a round of live ammunition for a 9mm pistol. The police also obtained a facsimile of Gos credit card which it used in a bakeshop before the incident and a positive verification by the security guard. The police conducted a manhunt. Go surrendered and was positively identified by the witnesses. A complaint for frustrated homicide was then filed with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Go executed a waiver of Art 125 of the RPC to avail of a PI be Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio. Maguan died before the information could be filed. The prosecutor filed instead an information for murder with the RTC, wherein the prosecutor certified that there was no PI since Go did not waive Art 125. Counsel for petitioner then filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper PI alleging that no PI was conducted and the warrantless arrest was unlawful. Gos petition for bail was approved and his release was ordered. The prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct PI and to suspend proceedings in the court which was granted. However, the judge recalled the bail, PI, and immediate release and set aside the case for arraignment. Petitioner was admitted at the Rizal Provincial Jail. Petitioner was arraigned and hearings were conducted. Go then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA which was issued. The CA also denied the deferment of the arraignment and his other motions. Hence, this petition for review. ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest was lawful.

W/N petitioner effectively waived his right to PI. DECISION: Gos arrest took place 6 days after the shooting. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements of eyewitnesses. It is clear that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner. Since he had not been arrested, he was also not entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the PI. The prosecutor should have conducted the PI upon the filing of the complaint for frustrated homicide by the police since he should have been accorded with such right without any conditions. The court held that petitioner did not waive his right to PI. Such right is a substantive right. To deny him of such right would deprive him of his right to due process. PI is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. In the case, Go insisted on his right to PI before his arraignment. He even asked for bail in one motion. Hence, we cannot reasonably imply waiver of PI.