In a situation where the respondent in a criminal case is under an inquest proceeding and the inquest prosecutor dismisses the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause, may the detention of the respondent be continued on the ground that the complainant has filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Prosecutor or a petition for review before the Department of Justice or on the ground that the case is subject to automatic review pursuant to a department order of the Secretary of Justice?
This is the main legal and procedural issue in the controversial case of the Alabang Boys which is now raging in the Philippine mass media.
When a respondent is arrested under Rule 13 (valid warrantless arrest), he is immediately subjected to an inquest proceeding (that is, within 36 hours at the most, counted from the arrest of the respondent, if he does not waive his right against illegal detention under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code).
If the inquest prosecutor is satisfied with the proofs of probable cause submitted by the complainant and the arresting police officers, he will file the appropriate information in court, subject to review and approval by the chief city or provincial prosecutor, within the maximum period allowed by Article 125.
If the respondent waives his Article 125 rights, he continues to be detained and the criminal case is subjected to regular preliminary investigation, which must be completed by the investigating prosecutor within 15 days (from the expiration of the maximum time allowed by Article 125). In a regular preliminary investigation, the respondent may file his counter-affidavit, the affidavits of his witnesses, and his supporting evidence.
If the investigating prosecutor dismisses the complaint for lack of probable cause, and the complainant or the arresting police officers file a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation or appeal the dismissal via petition for review to the Department of Justice or if the resolution is subjected to automatic review by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to a department order, should the respondent be released pending such proceedings to avoid a violation of Article 125?
I believe so. The respondent must be released pending such proceedings.
The spirit of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure favors the theory that the respondent, in the above scenario, must be immediately released. Otherwise, his continuing detention would stifle his constitutional and human rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and presumption of innocence, as enshrined in Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
A DOJ department order imposing the procedure of automatic review for big and controversial criminal cases may be allowed because it is discretionary on the part of the Secretary of Justice, he being in control of the national prosecution arm of the State, but he must release a respondent from detention when the investigating prosecutor, with the approval of the chief city or provincial prosecutor, has dismissed a case for lack of probable cause, notwithstanding the pendency of appellate proceedings before the DOJ. Otherwise, there is sufficient basis to initiate a criminal complaint against the guilty DOJ and police officials for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Holes in DOJ
(excerpts from the editorial)
Jan. 8, 2009
Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON THE CASE OF THE alleged bribery involving the “Alabang Boys,” but already it seems clear that the Department of Justice has some housekeeping to do.
X x x.
It was, of course, no such thing. Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio Zuño, who signed the original DOJ resolution on Dec. 2 already incorporating the release order for the three young men, called Verano’s maneuver “not normal”. Verano himself explained it in terms anyone dealing with a corrupt organization would find familiar: “I am just facilitating the order. Maybe I was a little bit overzealous.”
X x x.
The justice department also seems to have tolerated a culture of confusion. The answers of DOJ lawyers to questions raised at the House committee hearings about the procedures involved in the release of suspected illegal drug users and pushers have been less than illuminating. Under the Manual Prosecutors, the chief state prosecutor has the authority to conclude the resolution of a case. Gonzalez, however, had issued a department order requiring his personal approval of the resolution of important cases, especially those involving drugs and smuggling cases. In Gonzalez’s own words: “If it is a drug or smuggling case, if the punishment is more than five years, and you dismiss a case of that nature, you must get my imprimatur.”
Under questioning, however, state prosecutors like John Resado described a work culture where the justice secretary’s circular providing for automatic review was either honored in the breach or interpreted laxly.
This confusing state of affairs allows a state prosecutor to act on the assumption that a resolution signed by the chief state prosecutor is effective immediately even while it is pending automatic review.
None of this is to say that the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s performance is flawless, and that therefore every single arrest it makes must end in conviction. But the many loopholes in DOJ processes help explain why the burden of responsibility, in this high-profile case, rests largely on the Department of Justice.
X x x.
