PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182310
Petitioner,
Present:
Carpio, J., Chairperson,
- versus - Leonardo-De Castro,
Brion,
Del Castillo, and
Abad, JJ.
JAN MICHAEL TAN
and ARCHIE TAN, Promulgated:
Respondents.
December 9, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
The
Facts and the Case
The facts are based on the affidavits of the witnesses adduced
at the preliminary investigation of the case.
Francisco
“Bobby” Tan (Bobby), a businessman, lived with his family and a big household
in a compound on
There
were others in Bobby’s house: his aunt Conchita Tan, his cousin Shirley Young, Shirley’s
daughter Sheryl, eight servants, and Vini Gulmatico, a former family security
guard who was transferred to another post on January 2, 2006 after being caught
asleep on the job. The family had a
frequent guest, Mike Zayco, Cindy’s brother, and his sidekick Miguel Sola.[1]
At around 6:00 p.m. on January 8, 2006, Bobby and Raffy, Bobby’s
eldest son by Cindy, left the house for a cockfight. About that time, Bobby’s other son,
respondent Archie, drove out with the rest of the family to go to mass. They returned around 7:10 p.m. and had dinner. They were joined by Bobby’s aunt Conchita, his
cousin Shirley, and the latter’s daughter Sheryl. At about 7:45 p.m., Bobby and Raffy returned from
the cockfight but did not join the dinner, having already eaten elsewhere. Bobby went up directly to the master’s
bedroom on the second floor.
After
dinner, all the members of the family went to their respective rooms. Cindy joined
her husband in the master’s bedroom with their second to the youngest, Katherine,
and her nanny. Katrina, one of the
daughters, went to the girls’ bedroom to study. Shirley’s daughter Sheryl went to the master’s
bedroom at around 8:10 p.m. to let Cindy try the new pair of jeans given to her
by another cousin. Sheryl left
afterwards to go to her bedroom.[2]
At around 8:35 p.m., Borj, a blind masseur, and an escort arrived
at the house for Bobby’s massage in his room. At around 8:55 p.m., Emelita Giray, the
regular masseuse of Shirley and Sheryl, arrived with her husband.
About
9:30 p.m., Kristine, Bobby’s second to the oldest, went to her parents’ room to
get a bottle of shampoo and say goodnight.[3] Borj and his escort left Bobby’s residence at
around 9:53 p.m., followed about an hour later by Emelita and her husband.
Around
10:30 p.m., Cindy’s stepson, respondent Archie, went to the garage and took two
pairs of gloves, still wrapped in plastic, from his car. Archie also picked up a pack of cigarettes that
he left earlier with their security guard, Ramel Lobreza, before going back
upstairs.[4]
At around 10:45 p.m., respondents Archie and Jan-Jan joined
Raffy, Bobby’s oldest child by Cindy, and their driver Julito Geronda in
watching a DVD movie on Raffy’s laptop at the carport. Jan-Jan went back to his room at around 11:00
p.m. but Archie remained to finish his cigarette. He, too, left afterwards for his room to
change.[5] By 11:55 p.m. Raffy turned off the video.[6]
A few minutes later or at 12:17 a.m. of the next day
(January 9, 2006), while security guard Lobreza was making his inspection rounds
of the compound, he noticed that the lights were still on in the rooms of Cindy’s
stepsons, respondents Archie and Jan-Jan.
According
to respondents Archie and Jan-Jan, they climbed down the high concrete fence of
the compound at about 12:45 a.m to go out. They took a cab to Calzada Bar, Camp Jefferson Club, and Caltex Starmart.[7] They returned home at around 3:30 a.m.
Respondent
Jan-Jan entered the house ahead of his brother.
On reaching the door of his room at the end of the hallway, he noticed
his stepsister Katherine, the second to the youngest, lying on the floor near
the master’s bedroom. As Jan-Jan switched
on the light in his room, he beheld her lying on a pool of blood. He quickly stepped into the master’s bedroom
and there saw his father, Bobby, lying on the bed with his chest drenched in
blood.[8]
Almost simultaneously, respondent Archie who had come into
the house after his brother Jan-Jan noticed that the door of his room, which he
locked earlier, was partly open. As he
went in and switched on the light, he saw his stepmother Cindy, lying in her blood
near the wall below the air conditioner. He then heard Jan-Jan shouting to him that
their father was dead. Archie
immediately ran downstairs to call security guard Lobreza while his brother Jan-Jan
went around and awakened the rest of the family. Because Lobreza did not respond to shouts,
Archie ran to his room to rouse him up. He
told him what he discovered then awakened the other house-helps.[9]
Respondent Archie then phoned police officer Nelson Alacre,
told him what had happened, and requested him to come immediately. Officer Alacre arrived after a few minutes
with some other officers. They
questioned Archie and Jan-Jan and took urine samples from them. The tests showed them negative for illegal
drug use.[10]
Around 4:20 a.m., Officer Alacre rode with respondent Archie
on the latter’s Toyota Rav4 and they drove to the house of Col. John Tarrosa, a
family friend. They then went to the
house of Manolo Natal, Bobby’s cockfight llamador,
to pick him up before driving back to Bobby’s residence.[11] Meanwhile, on hearing about the crime, the Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Regional Chief directed his own men to
investigate the crime scene.[12]
On the
afternoon of January 11, 2006, two days after the remains of the victims were brought
home for the wake, Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz supposedly asked respondents Archie
and Jan-Jan, Cindy’s stepsons, to sign a statement that the police prepared. The lawyer did not, however, let them read the
document or explain to them its contents. They signed it on Atty. Jiz’s assurance that
they would have the chance to read the statement later at the public
prosecutor’s office and correct any mistakes before swearing to the same. The complainants did not, however, present this
statement during the preliminary investigation nor did Archie and Jan-Jan swear
to it before a public prosecutor.[13]
Another two days later or on January 13, 2006, police
officers from the Regional CIDG submitted their investigation report to the
City Prosecutor’s Office of Iloilo City.
This pointed to respondents Archie and Jan-Jan as principal suspects in the
brutal killing of their parents and a young stepsister.[14] On January 18, 2006 police officer Eldy Bebit
of the CIDG filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor’s Office, accusing
the two brothers of parricide and double murder.[15] The parties submitted their affidavits and
pieces of evidence at the preliminary investigation.[16]
On September 29, 2006 the City Prosecutor’s Office filed
separate informations for two murders and parricide against respondents Archie
and Jan-Jan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On October 3, 2006 respondents Archie and Jan-Jan filed a motion
for judicial determination of probable cause with a prayer to suspend the
issuance of warrants of arrest against them in the meantime.[18] Further, on October 5, 2006 they asked the RTC
to defer further proceedings in order to give them the opportunity to question
the public prosecutor’s resolution in the case before the Secretary of Justice.[19]
On October 6, 2006 the acting presiding judge of the RTC
issued an order, directing the prosecution to correct certain deficiencies in its
evidence against respondents.[20] On October 20, 2006, the City Prosecutor of
Iloilo City filed a manifestation, informing the RTC of his partial compliance
with its order. He also filed an urgent ex parte motion for clarificatory
exception.[21]
On December 23, 2008 Rosalinda Garcia-Zayco, Cindy’s mother
and court-appointed guardian ad litem
of her minor grandchildren, opposed respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s petition
for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ).[22] She pointed out that the two had sufficient
motive to commit the crimes of which they were charged. They openly showed disrespect towards their
father, Bobby, and constantly had heated arguments with him. They also nurtured ill feelings and
resentment towards Cindy, their stepmother, they being illegitimate children. They never accepted the fact that Bobby
married Cindy rather than their mother. The
National Bureau of Investigation report classified the crimes as motivated by
hatred.[23]
Cindy’s mother made capital of the absence of respondents Archie’s
and Jan-Jan’s fingerprints in any part of their own rooms, particularly the
light switches and the doorknobs. She
cited the Investigating Prosecutor’s theory that either of the accused used the
wet red shirt hanging in Jan-Jan’s bathroom to erase all fingerprints at the
crime scene, something that forensic science can justify.[24]
Moreover, while investigators were still examining the
crime scene, Bobby’s aunt Conchita called a locksmith to force open Bobby’s safes
in the master’s bedroom as well as in his office on
Lastly, nine days after the victims’ burial, respondent Archie
filed a petition for the settlement of Bobby and Cindy’s estate, nominating Conchita
as administratrix of the estate. He filed
an ex parte motion for her appointment
as special administrator for the meantime without consulting his
half-siblings. The estate court granted the
motion. Archie reportedly continued with
his nightly bar hopping even during the wake of his father.
Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s defense is alibi. They claimed that they were away when the
crimes took place at the house. Based on
Dr. Lebaquin’s forensic computation, however, the victims probably died at about
midnight, more or less. The two were
still at home when the killings happened.
On October 27, 2006 the RTC, then temporarily presided over
by Judge Narciso Aguilar, found no probable cause against respondents Archie
and Jan-Jan. Judge Aguilar thus granted
their motion to suspend the issuance of warrants for their arrest and to defer
the proceedings.[26] The two respondents then filed a motion to
dismiss the case.[27] On January 12, 2007 the RTC issued an order,
directing the City Prosecutor’s Office to submit additional evidence in the
case but the latter office asked for more time to comply.[28] Meanwhile, the DOJ issued a resolution
dismissing respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s petition for review.[29]
After a new presiding judge, Judge Globert Justalero, took
over the RTC, he issued an order on March 30, 2007 granting the prosecution’s
request for additional time within which to comply with the court’s order of
January 12, 2007.[30] On April 2, 2007 the prosecutor’s office filed
its compliance and submitted its amended resolution in the case.[31] The petitioners assailed this amended resolution
and pointed out that the public prosecutor did not submit any additional
evidence.[32]
On April 23, 2007 Judge Justalero reversed the order of the
previous presiding judge. He found probable
cause against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan this time and ordered the issuance
of warrants for their arrest.[33] Without seeking reconsideration of Judge
Justalero’s order, Archie and Jan-Jan filed the present petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA)
of
The Issues Presented
Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan present the following issues
for resolution by this Court:
a) Whether or not the CA committed error in
ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he re-examined his
predecessor’s previous finding that no probable cause existed against respondents
Archie and Jan-Jan despite the absence of new evidence in the case; and
b) Whether or not the CA committed error in
ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he made a finding
that there is probable cause to issue a warrant for the arrest of the two.
The Court’s Rulings
One. The CA pointed out that since the prosecution
did not submit additional evidence before the RTC, its new presiding judge
(Judge Justalero) gravely abused his discretion when he re-examined and
reversed his predecessor’s finding of lack of probable cause against respondents
Archie and Jan-Jan.
But
the record shows that, although Judge Aguilar, the former presiding judge, found
no probable cause against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan, he did not altogether
close the issue. In fact, he ignored
their motion to dismiss the case and even directed the City Prosecutor’s Office
to submit additional evidence. This indicates
that he still had doubts about his finding.
Meanwhile, the DOJ, looking at the evidence, affirmed the City
Prosecutor’s decision to file charges against Archie and Jan-Jan. After Judge Justalero took over, he gave the
prosecution the additional time it asked for complying with the court’s
order. On April 2, 2007 the prosecution filed
its compliance together with its amended resolution in the case.
Actually,
therefore, two new developments were before Judge Justalero: first, the DOJ’s
denial of the appeal of the two accused and its finding that probable cause existed
against them and, two, the local prosecutor’s submittal, if not of some
new evidence, of additional arguments respecting the issue of probable
cause. Grave abuse of discretion implies
an irrational behavior. Surely, this
cannot be said of Judge Justalero who re-examined in the light of the new
developments what in the first place appeared to be an unsettled position taken
by his predecessor.
What
is more, the previous judge did not yet act on respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s
motion to dismiss the criminal case against them. Consequently, the new judge still had full
control of the interlocutory orders that his predecessor had issued in the case,
including the order finding not enough evidence to justify the issuance of
warrants of arrest against them. The new
judge could reconsider and recall such order either motu propio or on motion when the circumstances warranted.
Two. The CA held that Judge Justalero gravely
abused his discretion when he made a finding that there is probable cause to
warrant the arrest of Archie and Jan-Jan.
But what is probable cause?
Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed
and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested.[37] It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear
and convincing evidence of guilt.[38] The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is
less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused,
the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest.
Here, admittedly, the evidence against respondents Archie
and Jan-Jan is merely circumstantial.
The prosecution evidence shows that they had motive in that they had
been at odds with their father and stepmother.
They had opportunity in that they were still probably home when the
crime took place. Archie took two pairs
of new gloves from his car late that evening.
Cindy was apparently executed inside Archie’s room. The separate rooms of the two accused had,
quite curiously, been wiped clean even of their own fingerprints. A trial, unlike preliminary investigations,
could yield more evidence favorable to either side after the interrogations of
the witnesses either on direct examination or on cross-examination. What is important is that there is some
rational basis for going ahead with judicial inquiry into the case. This Court does not subscribe to the CA’s
position that the prosecution had nothing to go on with.
WHEREFORE, the
Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
Court of Appeals’ decision dated December 19, 2007 and resolution dated March
25, 2008, and AFFIRMS and REINSTATES
the Regional Trial Court’s order dated April 23, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 128-129.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
Webb v. De
[38]
People v. Aruta, 351 Phil.
868, 880 (1998).