Beltran Vs People

Crispin B. Beltran vs.
People of the People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 175013, June 1, 2007
Topic: Inquest Proceedings
These are consolidated petitions for the writs of prohibition and certiorari to enjoin
petitioners’ prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulings of DOJ, RTC Makati on
the investigation and prosecution of petitioners’ cases.
FACTS: Petioners in other consolidated cases, Beltran, Maza, Virador, Ocampo, Casio
and Mariano are members of the House of Representatives representing various party-list
groups. All of them face charges for Rebellion under Art. 134 in relation to Art. 135 in
the RPC in 2 criminal cases pending with the RTC Makati.
Pres. GMA issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a State of National
Emergency. Police officers arrested Beltran and detained him in Camp Crame, Quezon
City. Beltran was arrested without a warrant and the arresting officers did not inform
Beltran of the crime for which he was arrested.
On that evening, Beltran was subjected to an inquest at the QC Hall of Justice for Inciting
to Sedition under Article 142 of the RPC based on a speech he allegedly gave during a
rally in QC on 24 February 2006, on the occasion of the 20thanniversary of the EDSA
Revolution. The inquest was based on the joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers
who claimed to have been present at the rally.
On Feb. 27, Beltran was brought back to Camp Crame where he was subjected to a
second inquest, this time, for Rebellion. A panel of State prosecutors from the DOJ
conducted this second inquest.
The inquest was based on two letters of Tanigue (Acting Executive Officer of Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group – CIDG and PNP) and of Mendoza (Acting Deputy
Director of the CIDG) The letters implicated Beltran etc. as leaders and promoters of an
alleged foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. The plot was supposed to be
carried out jointly by members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the
Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP), which have formed a tactical alliance.
The DOJ panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict
Beltran and San Juan as leaders/promoters of Rebellion, which they filed at RTC Makati.
The Information alleged that Beltran, San Juan, and other individuals conspiring and
confederating with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
form a tactical alliance between the CPP/NPA, renamed as Partidong Komunista ng
Pilipinas (PKP) and its armed regular members as Katipunan ng Anak ng Bayan (KAB)
with the Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP) and thereby rise publicly and take up
arms against the duly constituted government.
Branch 146 sustained the finding of probable cause against Beltran.

Solicitor General claims that Beltrans inquest for Rebellion was valid and that the RTC
Makati correctly found probable cause to try Beltran for such felony.

ISSUES:
1.) Whether the inquest proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion was valid – VOID
2.) Whether there is probable cause to indict Beltran for Rebellion - NONE

HELD:
1.) The Inquest Proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion is Void.

Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been lawfully arrested without
warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the
instances when such warrantless arrest may be effected, thus:

Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
The officers arrested Beltran, without a warrant, for Inciting to Sedition, and

not for Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only have conducted as
he did conduct an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no other.
In the second inquest for Rebellion, they overstepped their authority rendering the second
inquest void. None of Beltrans arresting officers saw Beltran commit, in their presence,
the crime of Rebellion. Nor did they have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that Beltran had just committed Rebellion, sufficient to form probable cause to believe
that he had committed Rebellion. What these arresting officers alleged in their affidavit is
that they saw and heard Beltran make an allegedly seditious speech on 24 February 2006.
The initial duty of the inquest officer is to determine if the arrest of the detained person
was made in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule
113. If the arrest was not properly effected, the inquest officer should proceed under
Section 9 of Circular No. 61 which provides:

Where Arrest Not Properly Effected. Should the Inquest Officer find that the
arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules, he shall:

a) Recommend the release of the person arrested or detained;
b) Note down the disposition on the referral document;
c) Prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the action taken; and
d) Forward the same, together with the record of the case, to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

Where the recommendation for the release of the detained person
is approved by the City or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on
hand warrant the conduct of a regular preliminary investigation, the
order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of said
detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the detainee the
subpoena or notice of preliminary investigation, together with the
copies of the charge sheet or complaint, affidavit or sworn statements of
the complainant and his witnesses and other supporting evidence.
For the failure of Beltrans panel of inquest prosecutors to comply with Section 7, Rule
112 in relation to Section 5, Rule 113 and DOJ Circular No. 61, we declare Beltrans
inquest void. Beltran would have been entitled to a preliminary investigation had he not
asked the trial court to make a judicial determination of probable cause, which effectively
took the place of such proceeding.
2.) There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Rebellion.
Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief
in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted
As a rule, Courts do not interfere with the prosecutors’ determination of probable cause
for otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review the prosecutors findings
in such investigations. However, in the few exceptional cases where the prosecutor
abused his discretion by ignoring a clear insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of
probable cause, thus denying the accused his right to substantive and procedural due
process, we have not hesitated to intervene and exercise our review power under Rule 65
to overturn the prosecutors findings. This exception holds true here.

The evidence before the panel of prosecutors consisted of the affidavits and other
documents attached to the CIDG letters. We have gone over these documents and find
merit in Beltrans contention that the same are insufficient to show probable cause to
indict him for Rebellion.
The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to indict Beltran
for taking part in an armed public uprising against the government. None of the affidavits
stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a
rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006. None of the affidavits
alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltrans alleged presence during the 1992
CPP Plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.

The Information merely alleged that Beltran, San Juan, and others conspired to
form a tactical alliance to commit Rebellion. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it found
probable cause to try Beltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it. The
Information does not charge Beltran with Rebellion but with Conspiracy to Commit
Rebellion, a bailable offense.

Beltran Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beltran Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beltran Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crispin B. Beltran vs.

People of the People of the Philippines

Topic: Inquest Proceedings

Branch 146 sustained the finding of probable cause against Beltran.

The officers arrested Beltran, without a warrant, for Inciting to Sedition, and

2.) There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Rebellion.

You might also like