REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO,
Bishop ELIEZER M. PASCUA,
in his capacity as General Secretary
of the United Church of Christ
in the Philippines,
Ms. SHARON ROSE JOY
RUIZ-DUREMDES, in her
capacity as General Secretary
of the National Council of Churches
in the Philippines,
Most Rev. DEOGRACIAS S. IÑIGUEZ,
JR., D.D. and Bishop SOLITO K.
TOQUERO, in their capacity as
Co-chairmen of the Ecumenical
Bishops Forum,
DR. ROMEO L. DEL ROSARIO,
In his capacity as President
of the Union Theological Seminary
G.R. NO. 179130
Re: PP vs. Berlin Guerrero
Crim. Case No. B-91-245,
RTC Bacoor, Cavite, Br. 19
- for -
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION,
and MANDAMUS, With Very
Urgent Prayer for TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER and/or
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION and
BANTAY KATARUNGAN
FOUNDATION, as Represented
by Jovito R. Salonga
Petitioners,
- versus -
HON. MATIAS M. GARCIA II,
Presiding Judge, Branch 19
Of the Regional Trial Court
at Bacoor, Cavite
Respondent.
X ---------------------------------------- X
1
PETITION
Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully state:
NATURE OF THE PETITION
This is a verified Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for grave abuse of discretion of the Respondent
Judge amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and seeks:
(a) to nullify the Order of said Respondent Judge dated August 2, 2007
denying the motion of Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO dated June
14, 2007;
(b) to enjoin and prohibit said Respondent Judge from proceeding any
further against said Petitioner; and
(c) to order the dismissal of the Information for murder against said
Petitioner and for his immediate release from his current detention.
PARTIES IN THE PETITION
1.
Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO, who is currently
detained in the Provincial Jail at Trece Martires City, is the Accused in Crim.
Case No. B-91-245, pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, at
Bacoor, Cavite, for murder, wherewith Respondent MATIAS M. GARCIA II
is the Presiding Judge thereat.
2. Petitioner Bishop ELIEZER M. PASCUA is the General Secretary of
the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP), a Church organization
2
and corporation existing under the laws of the Philippines, consisting of more
than 2,000 local churches and about a million membership, and whose head
office is at 877 Epifanio de los Santos, West Triangle, Quezon City.
3. Petitioner SHARON ROSE JOY RUIZ-DUREMDES is the General
Secretary of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), an
ecumenical outfit of all the mainline Protestant churches in the Philippines,
including the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, which Council, among others, aims
to promote church action for justice and human rights. Its office is at 879
Epifanio de los Santos, West Triangle, Quezon City, and one of its National
Church member is the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.
4.
Petitioners Most Rev. DEOGRACIAS S. IÑIGUEZ and Bishop
SOLITO K. TOQUERO are co-chairmen of the Ecumenical Bishops Forum,
an organization of Bishops from the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches,
including Bishops of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, and which
Forum is committed to the continuing advocacy for peace and human rights in
Philippine communities. Its office is at Rm. 212, Pope Pius XII Catholic Center,
United Nations Ave., Paco, Manila.
5. Petitioner Dr. ROMEO L. DEL ROSARIO is President of Union
Theological Seminary, an institution for seminary training and Christian
Ministry, with address at Palapala, Dasmarinas, Cavite, and where Petitioner
Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO is, and has for years been, a seminary student
and scholar.
6.
Petitioners
KATARUNGAN
KILOSBAYAN
FOUNDATION
are
FOUNDATION
independent
and
and
BANTAY
non-partisan
organizations, with their offices located at No. 7 First Street, Acacia Lane,
3
Mandaluyong City, and whose major program, among others, is to improve the
system
of
law and justice in the country, both in the ways of national
governance and in the actual performance of judicial officials.
They are
represented in this Petition by their founder and chairman emeritus, Jovito R.
Salonga.
7. Respondent Judge MATIAS M. GARCIA II is the Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, at Bacoor, Cavite, and whose Order dated
August 2, 2007 is the one being assailed in the present Petition.
TIMELINESS IN FILING THIS PETITION
1. The aforesaid Order of the Respondent Judge, dated August 2, 2007,
the duplicate original of which being hereto attached as ANNEX A, was
received by counsel for Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO on August
14, 2007. Under the Rules (Rule 65, Sec. 4, par. 1), said Petitioner has sixty
days from notice of Order within which to file the Petition. Thus, this Petition is
filed well within the reglamentary period as provided for by law.
2. This Petition is filed sans resort to a motion for reconsideration due to
the very urgent need for intervention of this Honorable Court, considering that
delay in the resolution of the issue would further aggravate the physical
condition of Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO who has been in
detention since May 27, 2007 under circumstances of extreme hazards to his
life, brought about by the pains and the beatings he underwent in connection
with his abduction, as will hereafter be further referred to. It will be noted from
the records that it took the Respondent Judge near two months before issuing
4
the herein assailed Order. This despite said Petitioner’s urgent motion and
representation for Respondent Judge not to delay the issuance of his resolution.
3. There is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law available to Petitioners.
ANTECEDENT RELEVANT FACTS
-1Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO, a Church Pastor and
Minister of the Gospel with the United Church of Christ in the Philippines
(UCCP), at about 5 PM of May 27, 2007, was abducted by unknown armed men
in civilian clothing immediately after presiding over the anniversary celebration
of the UCCP Local Church at Malaban, Biñan, Laguna, at which Local Church
he was then the Administrative Pastor. At the time of the abduction, he, together
with his wife and their two teenage children, was already aboard a tricycle, on
their way to the UCCP Local Church at nearby Calamba City where he was
invited to be one of the guests at the commemorative memorial service for a
fellow church worker who, exactly a year earlier, had been slain by masked
assasins.
-2The abduction was carried out in the following manner:
(a) The tricycle they were riding was blocked by
an unmarked white Fiera van;
5
(b) He was then forcibly dragged at gunpoint by
his captors into the van, his face being slammed
against the floor of the vehicle;
(c) Inside the van, he was blindfolded,
repeatedly slapped, and hit at the nape and at different
parts of his body;
(d) He was brought to a “safe house” where he
was intensively interrogated and subjected to extreme
forms of torture;
(e) He was threatened to be burned alive, his
whole family killed, and his teen age daughter raped;
(f) They covered his head and face with plastic
bag, alternately loosening and tightening it, depriving
him of oxygen;
(g) His face and body were continuously hit
with big plastic bottles of water, which method was
intended to minimize visible bruising;
(h) he, thus brutalized, passed out twice, and
was awakened by still more physical abuses.
Attached hereto as ANNEX B” and “B-1”, respectively, are the MedicoLegal Report issued by Dr. Jesse Rey T. Cruel of the Commission on Human
Rights and the Medical Evaluation of Torture and Ill-Treatment issued by Dr.
Reginaldo Pamugas of the Health Action for Human Rights in regard to their
medico-legal findings of the victim. His physical examination came to be done
6
only after the lapse of two days following the abduction. During said physical
examination, pictures were taken of him, copies of which being hereto attached
as ANNEXES B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6.
-3It was at about 10:00 a.m. of May 28, 2007, the day following his
abduction, when he was brought to a place which he later came to know as
Camp Pantaleon Garcia at Imus, Cavite, and which became his initial place of
confinement. Only then did he learn that he was supposedly “arrested” by
elements of the Philippine National Police, by virtue of an alias warrant of
arrest, issued on December 28, 1992 (nearly fifteen years earlier) pursuant to an
alleged case of “Murder.”
But throughout his long hours of interrogation and
ordeal, he was never questioned on matters relating to said case. Neither was he
ever shown a copy of the warrant for his arrest, nor ever informed of the nature
of accusation against him. Only later that day (May 28, 2007) was he informed
about the supposed filing of the case at Bacoor, Cavite. But he was not told of
any vital details, such as when and where the incident was supposed to have
occurred and who the victim was.
-4In any event, when his relatives had finally managed to obtain copies of
the records of said case, the following facts stood out, most patently and vividly,
from said records:
a) He was never notified about the criminal
complaint against him, filed on March 14, 1991 at the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona and GMA,
Cavite, nor about the Information filed on July 2, 1991
7
at the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. He
never had the opportunity to be heard in the
Preliminary Investigation of the case (if one had been
made), much less to confront and examine the
witnesses against him;
(b)
The sole witness who allegedly identified
him (through a group picture) in the killing of the
victim (a certain Fernando Hinto) never appeared
before Judge Myrna Lim Verano, the Municipal Judge
who conducted the Preliminary Investigation. As a
matter of fact, Judge Verano, on record, made the
following very significant statement on January 11,
1991 while in the course of propounding questions to
private complainant Ederlinda Yatco (wife of the
supposed victim) during the prelimenary investigation:
“T: Magagawan mo kaya ng paraang
madala dito sa husgado si Fernando
Hinto?
S:
Sisikapin ko po.
T:
Sikapin mo lamang na madala mo
rito si Fernando Hinto dahil kailangan ng
husgadong maimbistigahan siya dahil sa
kasalukuyan, base sa mga dokumentong
naririto sa record ng kaso ay wala pang
lumalabas na direct link sa pag-akusa
dito sa akusado, sinasabi ko na sa iyo
ngayon na mahina pa ang ebidensiya
laban kay Berlin Guerrero at kung hindi
mo madadala rito si Fernando Hinto ay
baka malaglag ang kaso mo, ano ho?”
8
Copy of the record of the preliminary investigation,
covering the foregoing examination of
Ederlinda
Yatco as conducted by Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano,
is hereto attached as ANNEX C.
Thereafter, Judge
Verano issued her Resolution, dated February 28,
1991, copy of which being hereto attached as ANNEX
D, in which she stated, among others, to wit:
“Eyewitness Fernando G. Hinto failed
to appear despite repeated subpoena so
this investigating officer was not able to
personally examine him and where
warranted, issue an arrest order against
accused. (Emphasis ours)
Despite the failure to ever produce said Fernando
Hinto, an Information for Murder, pursuant to the
aforesaid Resolution, was nevertheless filed against
Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO on July
2, 1991, for which no bail was recommended.
(c)
Regional Trial Court Judge Edelwina
Pastoral later issued a Warrant of Arrest against said
Pettioner on August 12, 1991 without personally
examining the Complainant or any of the prosecution
witnesses. No return was filed for the original Warrant
of Arrest and the Judge issued an alias warrant motu
proprio, in her Order dated December 28, 1992.
9
-5During all this entire period, from the isuance of the arrest order until his
abduction -- which spans nearly fifteen (15) years -- he had been a very public
figure, had gone about his activities unmolested as Church Pastor and as student
of Union Theological Seminary at Dasmarinas, Cavite, and had even been
invited to church conferences abroad; yet throughout all this time, he was totally
unaware, and had not the least notion, of the existence of the aforestated
criminal charge, of which, needless to say, he is absolutely and entirely
innocent.
-6Meanwhile, sometime on May 31, 2007, or four days following the
abduction, the PNP High Command, led by Gen. Oscar Calderon, Chief of the
Philippine National Police, sought a Dialogue with leaders of the United Church
of Christ in the Philippines, headed by Petitioner Bishop ELIEZER M.
PASCUA, UCCP General Secretary,
at which Dialogue the PNP High
Command, through Gen. Oscar Calderon, formally acknowledged “many errors”
over the case of Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO, including the
circumstances relative to his illegal and violent arrest and incarceration effected
by elements of the PNP. At said Dialogue, Gen. Calderon specifically stated,
among others, the following:
“And from the start nakita naming marami ng
mali. That gives suspicion and that we cannot prevent
everybody from the suspicion dahil maraming mali.
Kaya we would like to correct this. x – x (p. 11, par.
2, transcript of the Dialogue)
“ x – x On the identification of the suspects,
wala ng problem. We have identified the unit, the
NSIF, it’s up to the commander to identify the men
10
who were sent. Then hindi nya pwedeng sabihin hindi
nya alam dahil mga tao nya yun. Sila ang nag-turn
over dito. Yon ang ano natin. We will ask the
commander to identify the person. x – x “ (p. 14, last
par., transcript of the Dialogue)
“Yong,kamukha noong sinasabi nila, na there
are missing items from the victim,kasi, it is easy na
dagdagan mo ng dagdagan e dahil in the first place
there was no accounting during the taking. Upon the
arrest of the person all the items should be inventoried
in his presence. He should have received the copy of
the receipt of what items taken from them. In the
absence of that, pwedeng dagdagan dahit sa ano wala
namang resibo. Ang during the return of the items
mabuti kung me pinapirma sa kanya meron bang
resibo. Walang problema kahit ano yong binigay nireceive mo lang. Walang resibo silang binigay,
walang proweba na kasama yon ng kinuha. Yong mga
kameras, we can claim, pera we can claim, wala
naman silang resibo. Yong credibility ng evidence, it’s
a question dahil from the start mali na. So yoong
magiging dulo, hindik pwedeng magbunga ng tama
ang mali. So from the start maling mali na ho yon. x
– x” (p. 15, 2nd par., transcript of the Dialogue)
A copy of the minutes of said Dialogue, including
the aforecited relevant
portions thereof, is hereto attached as ANNEX E, E-1, E-2, and E-3.
-7The unprecedented brazeness of the incident, victimizing as it did a
religious worker while in the midst of carrying out his work and mission as a
Church Pastor, has aroused the protests and outrage, the herein co- Petitioners
on behalf of their respective church, academic, and/or ecumenical organizations,
and also of numerous other concerned groups and institutions, locally and
abroad.
-8Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO, subsequent to his brutal
abduction and illegal incarceration, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch
11
19, at Bacoor, Cavite, presided over by Respondent Judge, an Urgent Motion for
the Release of the Accused (With Complimentary Prayer to Quash Warrant of
Arrest and to Dismiss Information), dated June 14, 2007, a copy of which being
hereto attached as ANNEX F.
This was followed by an Urgent Ex-Parte
Motion to Resolve Pending Incident, dated July 11, 2007, a copy of which being
hereto attached as ANNEX F-1.
Finally, said Petitioner submitted an Urgent
Motion (For the Provisional Custody of Accused by the Executive Head of the
United Church of Christ in the Philippines), dated July 24, 2007, a copy of
which being hereto attached as ANNEX F-2.
-9Respondent Judge later issued his herein assailed Order (ANNEX A),
dated August 2, 2007, DENYING both the basic motion for said Petitioner’s
release (ANNEX F), dated June14, 2007, as well as the motion for his
provisional custody by the UCCP Executive Head (ANNEX F-2), dated July 24,
2007.
GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION
By his assailed Order, Respondent Judge erred and committed grave
abuse of discretion in denying the Motion of Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V.
GUERRERO (ANNEX F) for his immediate release, given that there
absolutely was no legal basis for his arrest and continued incarceration.
Likewise, by his assailed Order, Respondent Judge likewise erred and
committed grave abuse of discretion in ignoring the facts on record, in keeping
silent about them, in casting aside all the undisputed and uncontested data which
should otherwise compel and make imperative the grant of said Motion.
12
ESSENTIAL DISCUSSION
The Respondent Judge, with grave abuse of discretion, ignored, in his
assailed Order, what patently appears on record, which are as follows:
FIRST: The record glaringly bears out that the Information was
filed against Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO despite utter lack
of probable cause to indict him of the serious crime of Murder.
SECOND. The records are likewise very clear that the subsequent
Warrant of Arrest, issued by Judge Edelwina Pastoral of the Regional Trial
Court, was issued out merely as a matter of course, without probable cause,
and without the Judge Pastoral conducting the required personal
examination of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses
THIRD: Finally, the records, plainly and blaringly, point to a very
iniquitous aspect in the case – and this the Respondent Judge again ignored,
and to which nothing at all was said in his Order -- in that the basic human
rights of Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO were viciously defiled
and trampled upon by those who were duty-bound to uphold them.
ON THE FIRST POINT: RECORDS
REVEAL UTTER LACK OF
PROBABLE CAUSE
As already pointed out, Municipal Judge Myrna Lim-Verano, who
conducted the preliminary investigation, even stated during the proceedings
that, without the testimony and examination of the supposed eyewitness
Fernando Hinto, there is nothing that can link Berlin Guerrero to the crime
charged (ANNEX C). Yet, in complete and stark violation of the basic rules on
13
preliminary investigation, as provided for and outlined in Rule 112, Judge
Verano nevertheless gave due course to the filing of Information against
Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO. Paradoxically, in her Resolution
(ANNEX D), she referred to the affidavit of witness Hinto which was taken by
the police investigators – but, at the same time, underscored in the same
Resolution, her NOT having examined said witness, and her NOT having even
seen him.
As so ruled by this Honorable Court in the case of Salonga vs. Paño, 134
SCRA 438:
“The purpose of a preliminary investigation is
to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an
open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble,
expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to
protect the state from useless and expensive trial
(Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA 241, citing Hashim v.
Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). The right to a preliminary
investigation is a statutory grant, and to withhold it
would be to transgress constitutional due process
(People v. Oandasa, 25 SCRA 277). However, in order
to satisfy the due process clause it is not enough that
the preliminary investigation is conducted in the sense
of making sure that the transgressor shall not escape
with impunity. A preliminary investigation serves not
only for the purposes of the State. More important, it
is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play
which are birthrights of all who live in the country. It
is therefore imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as
the case may be, to relieve the accused from the pain
of going thru a trial once it is ascertained that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case
or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient
belief as to the guilt of the accused (emphasis
supplied).
Again, in the most recent case of Vicente P. Ladlad, et. al vs. Emmanuel
Y. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, promulgated June 1, 2007, the above doctrine
was strongly reiterated, thus:
14
“A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve
in the criminal justice system which spells for an
individual the difference between months if not years
of agonizing trial and possibly jail term, on the one
hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the other
hand. Thus, we have characterized the right to a
preliminary investigation as not “a mere formal or
technical right” but a “substantive” one, forming part
of due process in criminal justice. This specially holds
true here where the offense charged is punishable by
reclusion perpetua and maybe non-bailable for those
accused as principals.”
Whereupon, in the present case, Respondent Judge seriously erred and
gravely abused his discretion in issuing the assailed Order -- in ignoring what
patently appears on record -- in failing to dismiss the case against Petitioner
Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO for total lack of probable cause -- and in
thereby denying his release from illegal confinement.
ON THE SECOND POINT:
RECORDS REVEAL ISSUANCE
OF WARRANT OF ARREST
TOTALLY BEREFT OF ANY BASIS
The Warrant of Arrest subsequently issued by Judge Edelwina Pastoral of
the Regional Trial Court, came out merely as a matter of course, without
probable cause, and without Judge Pastoral conducting the required personal
examination of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses.
Under the present assailed Order, the foregoing grievous flow was, with
grave abuse of discretion, again blatantly ignored by the Respondent Judge.
From the records, the Warrant of Arrest was issued by Judge Pastoral
without any factual or legal basis which should follow a judicial determination
of probable cause, which as defined in Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban 32 Phil.
363 [1915] is “the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
15
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.” In Lim v.Felix, 187 SCRA 788, cited in the case of Allado vs.
Diokno, 232 SCRA 192, this Honorable Court held “ x x The Judge has to exercise sound discretion for,
after all, the personal determination is vested in the
Judge by the Constitution. It can be as brief or as
detailed as the circumstances of each case require. To
be sure, the Judge must go beyond the prosecutor’s
certification and investigation report whenever
necessary. He should call for the complainant and
witnesses themselves to answer the Court’s probing
questions when the circumstances of the case so
require.” (emphasis supplied)
And in Ho v. People (280 SCRA 365, October 9, 1997), the Supreme Court
reiterated the same doctrine:
“Since their objectives are different, the Judge
cannot relied solely on the report of the prosecutor in
finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. Obviously and understandably, the
contents of the prosecutor’s report will support in own
conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused
of an offense and hold him for trial. However, the
Judge must decide independently. Hence he must
have supporting evidence, other than the
prosecutor’s bare report, upon which to legally
sustain his own findings on the existence or nonexistence of probable cause to issue an arrest order.
This responsibility of determining personally and
independently the existence of non-existence of
probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the
most basic law of the land.” (emphasis supplied).
To repeat, Respondent Judge, by his Order herein assailed, woefully sidetracked
the foregoing fundamental error that was committed when said warrant of arrest
was issued.
16
ON THE THIRD POINT: RECORDS REVEAL
BLATANT TORTURE AND ABUSE
The records blaringly point to a very iniquitous aspect in the case – and
this the Respondent Judge again ignored, and to which nothing at all was said in
his assailed Order --
in that the basic human rights of Petitioner Pastor
BERLIN V. GUERRERO during his abduction were viciously defiled and
trampled upon by those who were duty-bound to uphold them. His “arresting
officers” -- or, more accurately, his kidnappers -- made the “arrest” without
showing said Petitioner the warrant of arrest . . was interrogated without counsel
. . was blindfolded . . was tortured . . was threatened with summary execution . .
. . was intimidated with horrifying harm that would befall his family. What
happened to Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO in this regard was in
effect acknowledged by the PNP High Command itself (ANNEXES E, E-1, E2, and E-3), and sustained by the medical findings on said Petitioner
(ANNEXES B, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6).
This Honorable Court, in the
case Allado vs. Diokno cited above, has condemned similar vicious acts:
“The facts of this case are fatefully distressing
as they showcase the seeming immensity of
government power which when unchecked becomes
tyrannical and oppressive. Hence the Constitution,
particularly the Bill of Rights, defines the limits
beyond which lie unsanctioned state actions. But on
occasion, for one reason or another, the State
transcends this parameter.
In consequence,
individual liberty unnecessarily suffers. The case
before us, if uncurbed, can be illustrative of a dismal
trend. Needless injury of the sort inflicted by
government agents is not reflective of responsible
government. Judges and law enforcers are not by
reason of their high and prestigious office, relieved of
the common obligation to avoid deliberately inflicting
unnecessary injury.”
17
CONCLUSION
The Information for Murder against herein Petitioner Pastor BERLIN
V. GUERRERO, where no bail is recommended, was filed on July 2, 1991
despite the express finding and observation of the Municipal Trial Judge who
conducted the preliminary investigation, to the effect that without the
appearance and examination of Fernando Hinto, THERE IS NOTHING THAT
WILL LINK BERLIN GUERRERO TO THE CRIME BEING CHARGED
AGAINST HIM.
Thereafter, the Regional Trial Court which issued the Warrant of Arrest
against him on August 12, 1991, DID SO WITHOUT ONCE MAKING A
PERSONAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE WAS FACTUAL
OR LEGAL BASIS FOR ITS ISSUANCE, in violation of the accused’s
constitutional right to due process of law.
Finally, Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V. GUERRERO went on to suffer
and
be
inflicted
WITH
HORRENDOUS
PHYSICAL
PAIN
AND
INDIGNITIES. Indeed, all these are completely foreign and antithetical to our
kind of society that is held out to be governed by the rule of law.
To all of
these, the Respondent Judge, by assailed Order, turned a blind eye.
As this Honorable Court in the Allado case has rightfully expounded,
thus:
“Indeed, the task of ridding society of criminals
and misfits and sending them to jail in the hope that
they will in the future reform and be productive
members of the community rests both on the
judiciousness of judges and the prudence of
prosecutors. And, whether it is a preliminary
investigation by the prosecutor, which ascertains if the
respondent should be held for trial, or a preliminary
inquiry by the trial judge which determines if an arrest
18
warrant should issue, the bottomline is that there is a
standard in the determination of the existence of
probable cause, i.e., there should be facts and
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that the
accused is guilty of the crime with which he is
charged. Judges and prosecutors are not off on a frolic
of their own, but rather engaged in a delicate legal
duty defined by law and jurisprudence. x - x
“The sovereign power has the inherent right to
protect itself and its people from vicious acts which
endanger the proper administration of justice; hence,
the State has every right to prosecute and punish
violators of the law. This is essential for its selfpreservation, nay, its very existence. But this does not
confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens.
The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte
blanche for government agents to defy and disregard
the rights of its citizens under the Constitution.
Confinement, regardless of duration, is too high a
price to pay for reckless and impulsive prosecution.
Hence, even if we apply in this case the "multifactor
balancing test" which requires the officer to weigh the
manner and intensity of the interference on the right of
the people, the gravity of the crime committed and the
circumstances attending the incident, still we cannot
see probable cause to order the detention of
petitioners.
“The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect
the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of
political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the
preservation of our natural rights which include
personal liberty and security against invasion by the
government or any of its branches or instrumentalities.
Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights
takes precedence over the right of the State to
prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the
scales of justice tilt towards the former. Thus, relief
may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of
criminal law where it is necessary to provide for an
orderly administration of justice, to prevent the use of
the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner, and to afford adequate protection
to constitutional rights. x - x
“Let this then be a constant reminder to judges,
prosecutors and other government agents tasked with
the enforcement of the law that in the performance of
19
their duties they must act with circumspection, lest
their thoughtless ways, methods and practices cause a
disservice to their office and maim their countrymen
they are sworn to serve and protect. We thus caution
government agents, particularly the law enforcers, to
be more prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to
be oblivious of human rights protected by the
fundamental law. While we greatly applaud their
determined efforts to weed society of felons, let not
their impetuous eagerness violate constitutional
precepts which circumscribe the structure of a
civilized community.”
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:
1. Upon the filing of this Petition, a temporary restraining orer or writ of
preliminary injunction be issued restraining the Respondent Judge from
conducting further proceedings as against Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V.
GUERRERO in Crim. Case No. B-91-245 entitled People of the Philippines
vs. Berlin Guerrero;
2.
After notice and hearing, the writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus be issued: (a) annulling the assailed Order of the Respondent Judge,
dated August 2, 2007; (b) enjoining and prohibiting said Respondent Judge
from proceeding any further against the Petitioner Pastor BERLIN V.
GUERRERO, and (c) ordering and compelling the immediate release of said
Petitioner from his current detention.
3. Petitioners pray for such other reliefs and remedies as are warranted by
law and equity.
Mandaluyong City, for Manila
August 24, 2007
20
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:
JOVITO R. SALONGA
Kilosbayan House
No. 7 First Street, Acacia Lane
Mandaluyong City
IBP O.R. No. 675771
Issued Pasig City, Feb. 14, 2006
Attorney’s Roll No. 23
EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR.
Kilosbayan House
No. 7 First Street, Acacia Lane
Mandaluyong City
IBP O.R. No. 661220
Issued San Pablo City, Nov. 20, 2006
Attorney’s Roll No. 13532
EVELYN R. DOMINGUEZ
Civic Center Compound (LTO-Imus)
Gen. E. Aguinaldo Highway
Palico IV,Imus, Cavite
IBP O.R. No. 633318
Issued Imus, Cavite, Dec. 4, 2006
Attorney’s Roll No. 32184
FLORIN T. HILBAY
Kilosbayan House
No. 7 First Street, Acacia Lane
Mandaluyong City
IBP O.R. No. 691304
Issued Manila, Nov. 30, 2006
Attorney’s Roll No. 44957
BY:
EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR.
21
VERIFICATION/CETIFICATION
That we, BERLIN V. GUERRERO, of legal age, Filipino, married, and
currently detained in the Provincial Jail at Trece Martires City; ELIEZER M.
PASCUA, of legal age, Filipino, married, with office address at 877 Epifanio de
los Santos, West Triangle, Quezon City; SHARON ROSE JOY RUIZDUREMDES, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with office address at 879
Epifanio de los Santos, West Triangle, Quezon City; DEOGRACIAS S.
IÑIGUEZ, JR., of legal age, Filipino, single, and with office address at Rm. 212,
PopePius XII Catholic Center, United Nations Ave., Paco, Manila; SOLITO K.
TOQUERO, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with office address at Rm. 212,
Pope Pius XII Catholic Center, United Nations Ave., Paco, Manila;
and
JOVITO R. SALONGA, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with office address
at No. 7 First Street, Acacia Lane, Mandaluyong City, do hereby depose and say
that: we are the Petitioners in the above Petition for CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION, and MANDAMUS, with very Urgent Prayer for
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, that we have read the same, and that the contents of said
Petition are true and correct of our own personal knowledge.
Further, in compliance with the Supreme Court Circular No. 28-29
Administrative Order 04-94, we hereby certify that we have neither filed nor
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues with any
court, tribunal, or agency, and that, to the best of our knowledge, no such action
or proceeding is pending with any court, tribunal, or agency, and that if we
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before any court, tribunal, or agency, we bind ourselves to report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable Court.
Mandaluyong City
August 24, 2007
BERLIN V. GUERRERO
CTC No. 18494035
Issued at Bay, Laguna
Issued on March 16, 2007
ELIEZER M. PASCUA
CTC No. 22884819
Issued at Manila
Issued on June 13, 2007
DEOGRACIAS S. IÑIGUEZ, JR.
CTC No. 05686871
Issued at Caloocan City
Issued on Jan. 16, 2007
SOLITO K. TOQUERO
CTC No. 20678533
Issued at Silang Cavite
Issued on Jan. 12, 2007
22
ROMEO L. DEL ROSARIO
CTC No. 700517056
Issued at Damariñas Cavite
Issued on May 23, 2007
JOVITO R. SALONGA
CTC No. 18156051
Issued at Pasig City
Issued on Jan. 30, 2007
SHARON ROSE JOY RUIZ-DUREMDES
CTC No. 07567680
Issued at Quezon City
Issued on Jan. 1, 2007
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 24th day of August 2007 at
Quezon City. Affiants exhibited to me their respective Community Tax
Certificates duly noted under their respective names.
ATTACHMENTS:
ANNEX A - the duplicate original of Order of the Respondent Judge, dated August 2, 2007.
ANNEX B” and “B-1”, respectively, copy of the Medico-Legal Report issued by Dr. Jesse Rey T.
Cruel of the Commission on Human Rights and copy of the Medical Evaluation of Torture
and Ill-Treatment issued by Dr. Reginaldo Pamugas of the Health Action for Human Rights
ANNEXES B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8 pictures taken during the physical examination.
ANNEX C - Copy of the record of the preliminary investigation, covering the examination of
Ederlinda Yatco as conducted by Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano.
ANNEX D - Copy of the Resolution issued by Judge Verano, dated February 28, 1991.
ANNEX E, E-1, E-2, and E-3 - Copy of the minutes, and relevant portions, of the Dialogue
between leaders of the UCCP and the High Command of the PNP.
ANNEX F - Copy of the Urgent Motion for the release of Petitioner Guerrero (With Complimentary
Prayer to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Dismiss Information), dated June 14, 2007.
ANNEX F-1. - Copy of an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Resolve Pending Incident, dated July 11, 2007.
ANNEX F-2 - Copy of an Urgent Motion (For the Provisional Custody of Accused by the Executive
Head of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines), dated July 24, 2007.
23
24
25
26