Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Posadas V Ombudsman

    Uploaded by

    jack
    The NBI attempted to arrest two students suspected in a killing based on eyewitness identification but without arrest warrants. Petitioners Posadas, Lambino, and Torres-Yu, along with a lawyer, objected to the arrests, arguing the NBI lacked warrants. They promised to bring the students to the NBI the next day. Dizon then charged petitioners with obstructing justice. The Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal but the Ombudsman ordered prosecution. The Court found no probable cause, as petitioners were protecting the students' rights in the absence of warrants or evidence the students committed a crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Posadas V Ombudsman

    Uploaded by

    jack
    90 views1 page
    The NBI attempted to arrest two students suspected in a killing based on eyewitness identification but without arrest warrants. Petitioners Posadas, Lambino, and Torres-Yu, along with a lawyer, objected to the arrests, arguing the NBI lacked warrants. They promised to bring the students to the NBI the next day. Dizon then charged petitioners with obstructing justice. The Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal but the Ombudsman ordered prosecution. The Court found no probable cause, as petitioners were protecting the students' rights in the absence of warrants or evidence the students committed a crime.

    Original Description:

    asd

    Original Title

    Posadas v Ombudsman

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The NBI attempted to arrest two students suspected in a killing based on eyewitness identification but without arrest warrants. Petitioners Posadas, Lambino, and Torres-Yu, along with a lawyer, objected to the arrests, arguing the NBI lacked warrants. They promised to bring the students to the NBI the next day. Dizon then charged petitioners with obstructing justice. The Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal but the Ombudsman ordered prosecution. The Court found no probable cause, as petitioners were protecting the students' rights in the absence of warrants or evidence the students committed a crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views1 page

    Posadas V Ombudsman

    Uploaded by

    jack
    The NBI attempted to arrest two students suspected in a killing based on eyewitness identification but without arrest warrants. Petitioners Posadas, Lambino, and Torres-Yu, along with a lawyer, objected to the arrests, arguing the NBI lacked warrants. They promised to bring the students to the NBI the next day. Dizon then charged petitioners with obstructing justice. The Special Prosecutor recommended dismissal but the Ombudsman ordered prosecution. The Court found no probable cause, as petitioners were protecting the students' rights in the absence of warrants or evidence the students committed a crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    131492 September 29, 2000


    ROGER POSADAS, ROSARIO TORRES-YU, and MARICHU LAMBINO v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, THE SPECIAL
    PROSECUTOR, and ORLANDO V. DIZON

    FACTS:
    Dennis Venturina (Venturina), a member of Sigma Rho at the University of the Philippines (UP), was killed in a
    rumble between his fraternity and another fraternity. Petitioner Roger Posadas, then Chancellor of UP Diliman,
    asked the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for assistance in determining the persons
    responsible for the crime. In response to the request, respondent Orlando V. Dizon (Dizon), Chief of the Special
    Operations Group of the NBI, and his men went to UP and, on the basis of the supposed positive identification of
    two alleged eyewitnesses, attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan (Taparan) and Raymundo Narag (Narag),
    officers/members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of Venturina.

    Petitioners Posadas, Marichu Lambino (Lambino), and Rosario Torres-Yu (Torrres-Yu), also of UP, and a certain
    Atty. Villamor, counsel for the suspects, objected on the ground that the NBI did not have warrants of arrest with
    them. Posadas and Atty. Villamor promised to take the suspects to the NBI Office the next day. As a result of their
    intervention, Taparan and Narag were not arrested by the NBI agents.

    Dizon then filed a complaint in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, charging petitioners with violation of PD
    1829, which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.

    On motion of petitioners, the Special Prosecutor's Office recommended the dismissal of the case. But the
    recommendation was disapproved. The Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special Prosecutor to proceed with
    the prosecution of petitioners in the Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside
    the resolution of the Ombudsman's office ordering the prosecution of petitioners.

    ISSUE:
    Whether there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioners for violation of PD No. 1829

    HELD:
    No. There is no probable cause to charge petitioners of violating PD 1829. Probable cause is defined as "sufficient
    ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the court has been committed and that the
    respondents are probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial" (Section 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court). The
    absence of an arrest warrant, the absence of knowledge or reasonable ground on the part of the accused to
    believe that the students had committed a crime, the absence of any law punishing refusal to attend an
    investigation at the NBI, all show that there is no sufficient ground to charge the accused with Obstruction of
    Justice. On the contrary, the circumstances show that the accused, in safeguarding the rights of students, were
    acting within the bounds of law.

    The rule is that a criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined. But as has been held, "[i]nfinitely more important than
    conventional adherence to general rules of criminal procedure is respect for the citizen's right to be free not only
    from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution." In this case,
    petitioners' objection to the arrest of the students cannot be construed as a violation of PD 1829. Petitioners had a
    right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal.

    You might also like