RULE 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

OCAMPO V. ABANDO remains were among those discovered at the mass

G.R. No. 176830 | February 11, 2014| SERENO, CJ.: grave site.
Mass grave in Leyte!! Skeletal Remains! Operation VD!
PETITIONERS WERE MEMBERS OF CENTRAL
FACTS: COMMITTEE OF CPP/NPA/NDFP
POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR ALMADEN AND ARMY Also attached to the letters were the affidavits of
CAPTAIN TIU SENT 12 LETTERS TO PROSECUTOR Zacarias Piedad (NOTE: Only pertinent one), Tanaid,
VIVERO Beringuel and Roluna. They narrated that they were
Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden (P C/Insp. former members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP. According to
Almaden) of the PNP and Staff Judge Advocate Captain them, Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by the
Allan Tiu (Army Captain Tiu) of the 8th Infantry CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee. Allegedly,
Division of the Philippine Army sent 12 undated letters petitioners Saturnino C. Ocampo (Ocampo), Randall B.
to the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through Assistant Echanis (Echanis), Rafael G. Baylosis (Baylosis), and
Provincial Prosecutor Rosulo U. Vivero (Prosecutor Vicente P. Ladlad (Ladlad) were then members of the
Vivero). Central Committee.

LETTERS REQUESTED APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROSEC VIVERO ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO

ACTION ON 12 COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVITS PETITIONERS
The letters requested appropriate legal action on 12 On the basis of the 12 letters and their attachments,
complaint-affidavits attached therewith accusing 71 Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring, among
named members of the Communist Party of the others, petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits
Philippines/New Peoples Army/National Democratic and those of their witnesses.
Front of the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) of murder, Ocampo submitted his counter-affidavit.
including petitioners herein along with several other Echanis and Baylosis did not file counter-
unnamed members. affidavits because they were allegedly not served
the copy of the complaint and the attached
MASS GRAVE DISCOVERED IN LEYTE documents or evidence.
The letters narrated that on 26 August 2006, elements Counsel of Ladlad made a formal entry of
of the 43rd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army appearance on 8 December 2006 during the
discovered a mass grave site of the CPP/NPA/NDFP at preliminary investigation. However, Ladlad did not
Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, file a counter-affidavit because he was allegedly
Leyte. Recovered from the grave site were 67 severely not served a subpoena.
deteriorated skeletal remains believed to be victims of
"Operation Venereal Disease" or Operation VD, PROSEC VIVERO RECOMMENDED FILING OF
launched by members of the Communist Party of the INFORMATION
Philippines/New Peoples Army/National Democratic In a Resolution dated 16 February 2007, Prosecutor
Front of the Philippines [CPP/NPA/NDFP] to purge Vivero recommended the filing of an Information for 15
their ranks of suspected military informers. counts of multiple murder against 54 named members
of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including petitioners herein, for
SPECIAL REPORT WAS MADE COMING UP WITH the death of 15 people.
NAMES OF 10 POSSIBLE VICTIMS
A PNP Scene of the Crime Operation (SOCO) Team was INFORMATION FILED BEFORE RTC OF LEYTE
immediately dispatched to the mass grave together The Information was filed before the Regional Trial
with an investigation team. Initial Report was Court (RTC) Hilongos, Leyte presided by Judge Ephrem
inconclusive with regard to the identities of the skeletal S. Abando (Judge Abando) on 28 February 2007, and
remains. Eventually, in a Special Report made later on, docketed as Crim Case No. H-1581. Ocampo filed an Ex
Case Secretariat of the Regional and National Inter- Parte Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Hearing
Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) came up with the dated 5 March 2007 prior to receiving a copy of the
names of ten (10) possible victims after comparison Resolution recommending the filing of the
and examination based on testimonies of relatives and Information.
witnesses.
JUDGE ABANDO FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE HENCE
12 COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVITS CAME FROM ISSUED WARRANTS OF ARREST
RELATIVES OF ALLEGED VICTIMS OF OPERATION On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order
VD finding probable cause "in the commission by all
The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the mentioned accused of the crime charged." He ordered
alleged victims of Operation VD. All of them swore that the issuance of warrants of arrest against them with no
their relatives had been abducted or last seen with recommended bail for their temporary liberty.
members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and were never seen
again. They also expressed belief that their relatives [NOTE: Please see Annex for details of events leading up to
consolidation of cases. Basically all of them got arrested due

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

RULE 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
to the Warrant of Arrest issued by Judge Abando and filed military custody from October 1976 until his
different oppositions to their arrest that got denied by the escape in May 1985. Thereafter, the Supplemental
RTCs hence they went up directly to SC.] Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad dated 12 January 2007
admitted that he made a mistake in his original
ISSUE: affidavit, and that the meeting actually took place in
W/N petitioners were denied due process during June 1985. Ocampo argues that he was denied the
preliminary investigation [NO] opportunity to reply to the Supplemental Affidavit
by not being furnished a copy thereof.
HELD: Ocampo also claims that he was denied the right to
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION file a motion for reconsideration or to appeal the
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero, because the latter
conducted to protect the innocent from the deliberately delayed the service of the Resolution
embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. by 19 days, effectively denying petitioner Ocampo
While the right to have a preliminary investigation his right to due process.
before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a
substantive right and a component of due process in ON ECHANIS AND BAYLOSIS CLAIM
the administration of criminal justice. We quote the pertinent portion of Prosecutor Viveros
Resolution: xxx Pursuant to the Revised Rules of Criminal
In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right Procedure[,] the respondents were issued and served with
to due process of law entails the opportunity to be Subpoena at their last known address for them to submit
heard. It serves to accord an opportunity for the their counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses.
presentation of the respondents side with regard to the Majority of the respondents did not submit their counter-
accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall affidavits because they could no longer be found in their last
decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a known address, per return of the subpoenas. On the other hand,
reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and Saturnino Ocampo, Fides Lim (Note: Lalads wife), xxx
submitted their Counter-Affidavits. However, Vicente Ladlad
that it was the respondent who committed it.
xxx failed to submit the required Counter Affidavits in spite
Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to dismiss entry of appearance by their respective counsels.
the complaint.
Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows
"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint based
to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's on the evidence before him if a respondent could
defense." What is proscribed is lack of opportunity not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a
to be heard. Thus, one who has been afforded a respondent were made, and he was given an
chance to present ones own side of the story opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the
cannot claim denial of due process. preliminary investigation remains valid. The rule was
put in place in order to foil underhanded attempts of a
PETITIONERS BELIEVE THEY WERE DENIED OF DUE respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses.
PROCESS
Echanis and Baylosis allege that they did not In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were
receive a copy of the complaint and the attached undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named
documents or evidence. respondents at their last known addresses. This is
Ladlad claims that he was not served a subpoena sufficient for due process. It was only because a
due to the false address indicated in the 12 undated majority of them could no longer be found at their last
letters of P C/Insp. Almaden and Army Captain Tiu known addresses that they were not served copies of
to Prosecutor Vivero. Furthermore, even though his the complaint and the attached documents or evidence.
counsels filed their formal entry of appearance
before the Office of the Prosecutor, Ladlad was still ON LADLADs CLAIM
not sent a subpoena through his counsels Ladlad claims that his subpoena was sent to the
addresses. Thus, they were deprived of the right to nonexistent address "53 Sct. Rallos St., QC," which had
file counter-affidavits. never been his address at any time. We take note of the
Ocampo claims that Prosecutor Vivero, in collusion fact that the subpoena to Fides Lim, petitioner Ladlads
with P C/Insp. Almaden and Army Captain Tiu, wife, was sent to the same address, and that she was
surreptitiously inserted the Supplemental Affidavit among those mentioned in the Resolution as having
of Zacarias Piedad in the records of the case timely submitted their counter-affidavits.
without furnishing petitioner Ocampo a copy. The
original affidavit of Zacarias Piedad dated 14 Despite supposedly never receiving a subpoena,
September 2006 stated that a meeting presided by Ladlads counsel filed a formal entry of appearance on 8
petitioner Ocampo was held in 1984, when the December 2006. Prosecutor Vivero had a reason to
launching of Operation VD was agreed upon. believe that petitioner Ladlad had received the
Ocampo refuted this claim in his Counter-affidavit subpoena and accordingly instructed his counsel to
dated 22 December 2006 stating that he was in prepare his defense.
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE
RULE 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Ladlad, through his counsel, had every opportunity to ANNEX

secure copies of the complaint after his counsels *NOTE: Motion for Reconsideration = MFR
formal entry of appearance and, thereafter, to
participate fully in the preliminary investigation. EVENTS LEADING TO CONSOLIDATION OF CASES OF
Instead, he refused to participate. Having opted to PETITIONERS
remain passive during the preliminary On 16 March 2007, Ocampo filed before us this special
investigation, Ladlad and his counsel cannot now civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65
claim a denial of due process, since their failure to and docketed as G.R. No. 176830 seeking the
file a counter-affidavit was of their own doing. annulment of the:
6 March 2007 Order of Judge Abando and
ON OCAMPOS CLAIM 16 February 2007 Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero.
a. COLLUSIONON SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT Prayed for was the unconditional release of Ocampo
We do not find any merit in his allegation of collusion to from PNP custody, as well as the issuance of a
surreptitiously insert the Supplemental Affidavit of temporary restraining order/ writ of preliminary
Zacarias Piedad in the records. There was nothing injunction to restrain the conduct of further
surreptitious about the Supplemental Affidavit since it proceedings during the pendency of the petition.
clearly alludes to an earlier affidavit and admits the
mistake committed regarding the date of the alleged In an Order dated 27 July 2007, Judge Abando held in
meeting. The date of the execution of the Supplemental abeyance the resolution thereof and effectively
Affidavit was also clearly stated. Thus, it was clear that suspended the proceedings during the pendency of G.R.
it was executed after petitioner Ocampo had submitted No. 176830 before this Court.
his counter-affidavit. Should the case go to trial, that
will provide petitioner Ocampo with the opportunity to While the proceedings were suspended, Echanis was
question the execution of Zacarias Piedads arrested on 28 January 2008 by virtue of the warrant of
Supplemental Affidavit. arrest issued by Judge Abando. On 1 February 2008,
Echanis and Baylosis filed a Motion for Judicial
b. DENIAL OF RIGHT TO BE HEARD Reinvestigation/ Determination of Probable Cause with
Neither can we uphold petitioner Ocampos contention Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright and Alternative
that he was denied the right to be heard. For him to Prayer to Recall/ Suspend Service of Warrant.
claim that he was denied due process by not being
furnished a copy of the Supplemental Affidavit of On 30 April 2008, Judge Abando Ordered denying the
Zacarias Piedad would imply that the entire case of the motion. Echanis and Baylosis filed a MFR dated 30 May
prosecution rested on the Supplemental Affidavit. The 2008, but before being able to rule thereon, Judge
OSG has asserted that the indictment of petitioner Abando issued an Order dated 12 June 2008
Ocampo was based on the collective affidavits of transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. H-1581 to
several other witnesses attesting to the allegation that the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Manila. Order was
he was a member of the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central issued in compliance with the Resolution dated 23 April
Committee, which had ordered the launch of Operation 2008 of this Court granting the request of then
VD. Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales to transfer the venue
of the case.
c. DENIAL OF RIGHT TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR APPEAL RESOLUTION OF The case was re-raffled to RTC Manila, Branch 32 (RTC
PROSECUTOR VIVERO DUE TO 19-DAY DELAY IN Manila) presided by Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina (Judge
SERVICE OF RESOLUTION Medina) and re-docketed as Criminal Case No. 08-
It must be pointed out that the period for filing a 262163. Echanis was transferred to the PNP Custodial
motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City. On 12 August
Secretary of Justice is reckoned from the date of receipt 2008, Echanis and Baylosis filed their Supplemental
of the resolution of the prosecutor, not from the date of Arguments to MFR.
the resolution. This is clear from Section 3 of the 2000
National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal (See On 27 October 2008, Judge Medina suspended the
Annex). proceedings of the case pending the resolution of G.R.
No. 176830 by this Court.
Thus, when Ocampo received the Resolution of
Prosecutor Vivero on 12 March 2007 the former had On 18 December 2008, Ladlad filed with the RTC
until 27 March 2007 within which to file either a Manila a Motion to Quash and/or Dismiss.
motion for reconsideration before the latter or an
appeal before the Secretary of Justice. Instead, On 23 December 2008, Echanis filed before us a special
Ocampo chose to file the instant petition for civil action for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65)
certiorari directly before this Court on 16 March seeking the annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of
2007. Judge Abando and the 27 October 2008 Order of Judge
CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE
RULE 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Medina. Petition (G.R. No. 185587), prayed for the
unconditional and immediate release of petitioner
Echanis, as well as the issuance of a temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain his further incarceration.

On 5 January 2009, Baylosis filed before us a special

civil action for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65) also
seeking the annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of
Judge Abando and the 27 October 2008 Order of Judge
Medina. Petition (G.R. No. 185636) prayed for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the implementation
of the warrant of arrest against petitioner Baylosis.

The Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 185587 and 185636

on 12 January 2009. On 3 March 2009, the Court
ordered the further consolidation of these two cases
with G.R. No. 176830. Echanis was released on
condition that his temporary liberty shall continue for
the duration of his actual participation in the peace
negotiations between the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines (GRP) and the CPP/NPA/NDFP.

On 9 November 2009, Ladlad filed before us a special

civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court seeking the annulment of the 6 May 2009 and 27
August 2009 Orders of Judge Medina (i.e., Which both
denied Ladlads motion to quash before RTC Manila).
Petition (G.R. No. 190005) was consolidated with G.R.
Nos. 176830, 185587 and 185636.

On 17 January 2012, we granted the Urgent Motion to

Fix Bail of Ladlad and Baylosis and fixed their bail in the
amount of P100,000, subject to the condition that their
temporary release shall be limited to the period of their
actual participation in the peace negotiations.

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE