FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No.
123504. December 14, 2000]
P/INSP. RODOLFO SAMSON, PO3
JAMES BUSTINERA, PO2 PABLO TOTANES, and PO1 ADRIANO CRUZ, petitioners, vs.
HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., as Secretary of Justice, Chief State Prosecutor
ZENON DE GUIA, and State Prosecutor PAULITA ACOSTA-VILLARANTE and Prosecuting
Attorney EMMANUEL VELASCO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The instant
petition is to restrain the Secretary of Justice from conducting a
reinvestigation of PNP-CICC (Heirs of Datu Gemie Sinsuat vs. P/Sr. Insp.
Rodolfo Samson, et al.,)[1] pursuant to an order[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon
City, Branch 79.[3]
The facts are as
follows:
On July 13,
1995, at about 8:05 p.m., at Scout Reyes Street, Barangay Paligsahan, Quezon
City, patrolmen of the Central Police District Command posted at the
intersection of Scout Reyes Street and Mother Ignacia Street flagged a taxicab,
with Datu Gemie Sinsuat as passenger.
Instantly, the patrolmen shot Datu Sinsuat in different parts of the
body, inflicting upon him multiple gunshot wounds, causing his death.[4]
In August 1995,
PNP-Criminal Investigation Service and Central Police District Command district
director and the heirs of Gemie Sinsuat filed with the Department of Justice a
complaint[5]for murder against Rodolfo Samson,
James Bustinera, Pablo Totanes, Adriano Cruz, and police officers Ernesto Diaz,
Fernando Nituan, Jaime de la Cueva, Nestor Tiotioen and Edwin Villanueva, for
the killing of Datu Gemie Sinsuat, a son of a politician from Cotabato, on July
13, 1995, at Scout Reyes, Barangay Pinagkaisahan, Quezon City.
The case was
assigned to Prosecution Attorney Emmanuel Velasco.
Accused Diaz,
Nituan and dela Cueva admitted killing Datu Sinsuat but claimed self-defense
since according to them, they killed Sinsuat during a shootout. On the other hand, accused Samson and
Totanes denied any participation in the killing and alleged that they arrived
at the scene of the crime after the shooting in response to a radio message
requesting for assistance.[6]
Accused
Bustinera and Cruz submitted a separate joint counter-affidavit claiming that
they arrived at the scene of the crime after the shootout. They brought the body of Datu Sinsuat to the
Capitol Medical Center upon instructions of Captain Samson.[7]
After investigation,
on October 3, 1995, Prosecution Attorney Emmanuel Y. Velasco filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, an information[8] for murder against petitioners and
other police officers, except Nestor Tiotioen and Edwin Villanueva, who turned
state witnesses.
On October 3,
1995, petitioners filed with the trial court a Very Urgent Motion for Judicial
Determination of Existence of Probable Cause (with Prayer to Hold the Issuance
of Warrant of Arrest)[9] praying:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court to personally determine the existence of
probable cause before issuing the warrants for the arrest of the accused, and
to dismiss these cases if it shall determine that no probable cause exists
against the accused.
“Movants also pray that a warrant
of arrest be held in abeyance until after the resolution of this case or in
case a warrant has already been issued to recall the same with respect to the
movants.”
On October 9,
1995, the trial court ruled that there was probable cause for the arrest, with
no bail, of accused Ernesto Diaz, Fernando Nituan and Jaime de la Cueva.[10]
On October 18,
1995, the trial court ruled that it was premature to discuss the merits of
Exhibits “A” to “F” (for the prosecution) for the purpose of the issuance of a
warrant of arrest considering that these exhibits were not presented during the
preliminary investigation of the case and accused were not furnished copies of
the same.[11] The trial court ordered the
reinvestigation of the case with respect to petitioners. Thus-
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court
finds that at the time of the filing of the information for murder against
accused Samson, Totanes, Bustinera and Cruz based on the evidence presented
during the preliminary investigation and Resolution dated September 29, 1995
issued by Prosecutor Emmanuel Y.
Velasco, the Court finds no probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
arrest against accused P/Sr. Insp. Rodolfo Samson, PO3 Pablo Totanes, PO3 James
Bustinera and PO1 Adriano Cruz.
“The Chief State Prosecutor,
Department of Justice or his Assistant Prosecutors is ordered to reinvestigate
this case giving accused Samson, Totanes, Bustinera and Cruz opportunity to
controvert Exhibits A to F with sub-markings.
“SO ORDERED.”[12]
Petitioners did
not file any motion for reconsideration of the order. However, before the Department of Justice could conduct a
reinvestigation, on February 6, 1996, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court
the instant petition to enjoin respondents from further proceeding with the
reinvestigation of the case or from resolving the same.[13]
The issue is
whether or not the Court may enjoin the Secretary of Justice from conducting a
reinvestigation of the charges against petitioners as ordered by the trial
court for determination of probable cause.
We dismiss the
petition.
Petitioners’
plea for injunction to restrain the reinvestigation of the criminal case
against them is not legally permissible.
As a general
rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction preliminary or
final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution.[14] With more reason will injunction
not lie when the case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation.[15] However, in extreme cases, we have
laid the following exceptions:
(1) when the
injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional
rights of the accused; (2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration
of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is
a prejudicial question which is subjudice; (4) when the acts of the officer are
without or in excess of authority; (5) where the prosecution is under an
invalid law; ordinance or regulation; (6) when double jeopardy is clearly
apparent; (7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) where
it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) where the charges are
manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (10) when there
is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash
on that ground has been denied.[16]
Petitioners have
not shown that the case at bar falls within any of the recognized exceptions
above set forth. Petitioners only rely
on the probability that a reinvestigation may result in the remand of the case
to the court and the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
We find
petitioners’ plea for a writ of injunction or temporary restraining order
utterly without merit. As a rule, we do
not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or reinvestigations
and leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in
the exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will
establish probable cause for the filing of information against an offender.[17]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED,
for lack of merit.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] I.S. No. 95-523
[2] Dated October 18, 1995, Petition, Annex “I”, Rollo,
pp. 47-52.
[3] In Criminal Case No. Q-95-63293, Judge Godofredo L.
Legaspi, presiding.
[4] Comment, Rollo, p. 2; Petition, Annex “D”, Rollo,
p. 33.
[5] I. S. No. 95-523 entitled PNP-CIS and CPDC (in
behalf of Heirs of Gemie Sinsuat) vs. P/Sr. Insp. Rodolfo Samson, et al.
[6] Memorandum for Petitioners, Rollo, pp.
165-187, at p.166.
[7] Department of Justice Resolution, Rollo, pp.
112 - 125, at p. 122.
[8] Petition, Annex “G”, Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[9] Petition, Annex “H”, Rollo, pp. 39-46.
[10] See Order dated October 18, 1995, Petition, Annex
“I”, Rollo, pp. 47–52.
[11] Rollo, p. 51-52.
[12] Rollo, p. 52.
[13] Petition filed on February 6, 1996, Rollo,
pp. 3-26. On September 25, 1997, we
gave due course to the petition, Rollo, p. 28.
[14] Reyes v. Camilon, 192 SCRA 445 [1990]; Brocka
v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183, 188 [1990].
[15] Guingona v. City Fiscal of Manila, 137 SCRA
597, 605 [1985].
[16] Camanag v. Guerrero, 335 Phil. 945, 970-971
[1997], citing Paderanga v. Drilon,
196 SCRA 86 [1991]; Brocka v. Enrile, supra, Note 14, at
pp. 188-189; Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 [1987]; Mercado v.
Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 594, 598 [1995].
[17] Camanag v. Guerrero, supra, Note 16,
p. 969.