G.R. No. 121234. August 23, 1995.

* Parañaque, Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

HUBERT J. P. WEBB, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RAUL E. ZENON L. DE GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO
DE LEON, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of GUIYAB, JR., ROBERTO LAO, PABLO FORMARAN, and
Parañaque, Branch 258, HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. ESCANO, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and
the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, HONORABLE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, the Presiding
Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ZENON L. DE Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 274,
GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO GUIYAB, JR., respondents.
ROBERTO LAO, PABLO FORMARAN, and NATIONAL
Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Preliminary
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and HONORABLE investigation should determine whether there is sufficient ground to
AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, the Presiding Judge of the engender a well-grounded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC
Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 274, respondents, has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial.—We start with a restatement of the
LAURO VIZCONDE, Intervenor.
purpose of a preliminary investigation. Section 1 of Rule 112
______________ provides that a preliminary investigation should determine “x x x x
whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded
* SECOND DIVISION. belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been
653 committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 653 should be held for trial.”
Same; Same; Probable Cause; If the investigating fiscal finds
Webb vs. De Leon
cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution
G.R. No. 121245. August 23, 1995.* and corresponding information.—Section 4 of Rule 112 then directs
MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE that “if the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent
RAUL E. DE LEON, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and corresponding
Court of Parañaque, Branch 258, HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. information.
ESCANO, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of 654
Parañaque, Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ZENON L. DE GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO
Webb vs. De Leon
GUIYAB, JR., ROBERTO LAO, PABLO FORMARAN, and
He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record,
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, AND an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and
HONORABLE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, the Presiding his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 274, has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof
respondents. x x x.”
Same; Same; Same; In determining probable cause, facts and
G.R. No. 121297. August 23, 1995.*
circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical rules of
ANTONIO L. LEJANO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RAUL evidence, but rather based on common sense which all reasonable
E. DE LEON, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court men have.—The need to find probable cause is dictated by the Bill
of Parañaque, Branch 258, HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. of Rights which protects “the right of the people to be secure in their
ESCANO, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of persons x x x against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature x x x.” An arrest without a probable cause is an did not gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to call the NBI
unreasonable seizure of a person, and violates the privacy of persons witnesses for clarificatory questions. The decision to call witnesses
which ought not to be intruded by the State. Probable cause to for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of the
warrant arrest is not an opaque concept in our jurisdiction. investigator and the investigator alone. If the evidence on hand
Continuing accretions of case law reiterate that they are facts and already yields a probable cause, the investigator need not hold a
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent clarificatory hearing. To repeat, probable cause merely implies
man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner.
sought to be arrested. Other jurisdictions utilize the term man of Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and it is only in a trial
reasonable caution or the term ordinarily prudent and cautious where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as
man. The terms are legally synonymous and their reference is not the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his
to a person with training in the law such as a prosecutor or a judge innocence. In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel correctly adjudged that
but to the average man on the street. It ought to be emphasized that enough evidence had been adduced to establish probable cause and
in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary.
circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of our technical Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizure; Section 2, Article III
rules of evidence of which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on of the Constitution deals with the requirements of probable cause
the calculus of common sense of which all reasonable men have an both with respect to issuance of warrants of arrest and search
abundance. warrants.—The issuance of a warrant of arrest interferes with
Same; Same; Same; A finding of probable cause needs only to individual liberty and is regulated by no less than the fundamental
rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been law of the land. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides:
committed and was committed by the suspects.—Given these “Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
conflicting pieces of evidence of the NBI and the petitioners, we hold papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion when it whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
found probable cause against the petitioners. A finding of probable search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched
of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable and the persons or things to be seized.” The aforequoted provision
doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty deals with the requirements of probable cause both with respect to
of guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable issuance of warrants of arrest and search warrants.
cause demands more than “bare suspicion,” it requires “less than Same; Same; The items sought should be in fact seizable by
evidence which would justify x x x conviction.” A finding of probable virtue of being connected with criminal activity and the items will be
cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a found in the place to be searched.—“It is generally assumed that the
pronouncement of guilt. same quantum of evidence is required whether one is concerned
655 with probable cause to arrest or probable cause to search. But each
requires a showing of probabilities as to somewhat different facts
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 655
and circumstances, and thus one can exist without the other. In
Webb vs. De Leon search cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial
Same; Same; Same; Probable cause merely implies probability evidence: that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner.— connected with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in
Considering the low quantum and quality of evidence needed to the place to be searched. It
support a finding of probable cause, we also hold that the DOJ Panel 656
 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED hours. The fact that it took the respondent judges a few hours to
Webb vs. De Leon review and affirm the probable cause determination of the DOJ
is not also necessary that a particular person be implicated. By Panel does not mean they made no personal evaluation of the
comparison, in arrest cases there must be probable cause that a evidence attached to the records of the case.
crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested Same; Same; The various types of evidence extant in the records
committed it, which of course can exist without any showing that of the case provide substantial basis for a finding of probable cause
evidence of the crime will be found at premises under that person’s against petitioner.—Petitioners’ reliance on the case of Allado vs.
control.” Worthy to note, our Rules of Court do not provide for a Diokno
657
similar procedure to be followed in the issuance of warrants of arrest
and search warrants. With respect to warrants of arrest, section 6 VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 657
of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of an information, the Webb vs. De Leon
Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the
is misplaced. Our Allado ruling is predicated on the utter
accused.”
failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause. Not
Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Searching examination of
even the corpus delicti of the crime was established by the evidence
witnesses is not necessary before issuing warrants of arrest against
of the prosecution in that case. Given the clear insufficiency of the
them and the issuance of an order of arrest is not required prior to
evidence on record, we stressed the necessity for the trial judge to
issuance of a warrant of arrest.—Clearly then, the Constitution, the
make a further personal examination of the complainant and his
Rules of Court, and our case law repudiate the submission of
witnesses to reach a correct assessment of the existence or non-
petitioners that respondent judges should have conducted
existence of probable cause before issuing warrants of arrest against
“searching examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants of
the accused. The case at bar, however, rests on a different factual
arrest against them. They also reject petitioners’ contention that a
setting. As priorly discussed, the various types of evidence extant in
judge must first issue an order of arrest before issuing a warrant of
the records of the case provide substantial basis for a finding of
arrest. There is no law or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of
probable cause against the petitioner. The corpus delicti of the
Arrest prior to a warrant of arrest.
crime is a given fact. There is an eyewitness account of the imputed
Same; Same; Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely
crime given by Alfaro. The alibi defense of petitioner Webb is also
determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an
disputed by sworn statements of their former maids. It was
accused.—In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial
therefore unnecessary for the respondent judges to take the further
court its 26-page report, the two (2) sworn statements of Alfaro and
step of examining ex parte the complainant and their witnesses with
the sworn statements of Carlos Cristobal and Lolita Birrer as well
searching questions.
as the counter-affidavits of the petitioners. Apparently, the
Same; Same; An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a
painstaking recital and analysis of the parties’ evidence made in the
resolution finding probable cause shall not hold the filing of the
DOJ Panel Report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause
information in court.—An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a
to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we stress that
resolution finding probable cause, however, shall not hold the filing
before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine
of the information in court. SECTION 2. When to Appeal.—The
personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused.
appeal must be filed within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt
In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine
of the questioned resolution by the party or his counsel. The period
the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the
shall be interrupted only by the filing of a motion for reconsideration
initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to
within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution and shall continue
see if it is supported by substantial evidence. The sufficiency of the
to run from the time the resolution denying the motion shall have
review process cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and
been received by the movant or his counsel.” Without doubt then,
the said DOJ Order No. 223 allows the filing of an Information in appearance in investigative bodies/courts.” Petitioner Webb’s
court after the consummation of the preliminary investigation even challenge to the validity of R.A. No. 6981 cannot therefore succeed.
if the accused can still exercise the right to seek a review of the Same; Preliminary Investigation; Failure to provide discovery
prosecutor’s recommendation with the Secretary of Justice. procedure during preliminary investigation does not negate its use
Same; Trial; The power of the court to discharge a state witness by a person under investigation when indispensable to protect his
under Section 9, Rule 119 is a part of the exercise of jurisdiction but constitutional right to life, liberty and property.—This failure to
is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function.—We thus hold provide discovery procedure during preliminary investigation does
that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact not, however, negate its use by a person under investigation when
R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life, liberty and
determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and who property. Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage to guard
shall be granted immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 against any significant erosion of the constitutional right to due
does not support the proposition that the power to choose who shall process of a potential accused. As aforediscussed, the object of a
be a state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this preliminary investigation is to determine the probability that the
provision, the court is given the power to discharge a state witness suspect committed a crime. We hold that the finding of a probable
only because it has already cause by itself subjects the suspect’s life, liberty and property to real
658 risk of loss or diminution. In the case at bar, the risk to the liberty
of petitioners cannot be understated for they are charged with the
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
crime of rape with homicide, a non-bailable offense when the
Webb vs. De Leon evidence of guilt is strong.
acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The Same; Same; A preliminary investigation should be
discharge of an accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is scrupulously conducted so that the constitutional right to liberty of a
not a recognition of an inherent judicial function. Moreover, the potential accused can be protected from any material damage.—
Rules of Court have never been interpreted to be beyond change by Attuned to the times, our Rules have discarded the pure
legislation designed to improve the administration of our justice inquisitorial system of preliminary
system. 659
Same; R.A. 6981, Witness Protection Program; For a more
effective administration of criminal justice, there was a necessity to VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 659
pass a law protecting witnesses and granting them certain rights and Webb vs. De Leon
benefits to ensure their appearance in investigative bodies/courts.— investigation. Instead, Rule 112 installed a quasi-judicial type
R.A. No. 6981 is one of the much sought penal reform laws to help of preliminary investigation conducted by one whose high duty is to
government in its uphill fight against crime, one certain cause of be fair and impartial. As this Court emphasized in Rolito Go vs.
which is the reticence of witnesses to testify. The rationale for the Court of Appeals, “the right to have a preliminary investigation
law is well put by the Department of Justice, viz: “Witnesses, for conducted before being bound over for trial for a criminal offense,
fear of reprisal and economic dislocation, usually refuse to appear and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is
and testify in the investigation/prosecution of criminal not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right.” A
complaints/cases. Because of such refusal, criminal preliminary investigation should therefore be scrupulously
complaints/cases have been dismissed for insufficiency and/or lack conducted so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential
of evidence. For a more effective administration of criminal justice, accused can be protected from any material damage.
there was a necessity to pass a law protecting witnesses and Same; Same; Due Process; Right to compel the disclosure of
granting them certain rights and benefits to ensure their exculpatory facts during preliminary investigation is rooted in the
constitutional protection of due process which is operational even at
that stage.—We uphold the legal basis of the right of petitioners to Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Courts should
demand from their prosecutor, the NBI, the original copy of the give defer, in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, to the
April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report during finding and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in
their preliminary investigation considering their exculpatory preliminary investigations.—Preliminary investigation, unlike
character, and hence, unquestionable materiality to the issue of trial, is summary in nature, the purpose of which is merely to
their probable guilt. The right is rooted on the constitutional determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there
protection of due process which we rule to be operational even is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof
during the preliminary investigation of a potential accused. It is also (Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86, 92 [1991]). It is not intended to
implicit in section (3) (a) of Rule 112 which requires during the find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts should give deference, in
preliminary investigation the filing of a sworn complaint which the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, as in this case, to
shall “x x x state the known address of the respondent and be the finding and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in
accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as preliminary investigations. If not, the functions of the courts will be
well as other supporting documents x x x.” unduly hampered by innumerable petitions compelling the review
Constitutional Law; Right To Fair Trial; Prejudicial of the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting
Publicity; To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must attorneys if each time they decide to file an information in court
be an allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly their finding can be immediately brushed aside at the instance of
influenced, not simply that might be, by the barrage of publicity.— those charged (Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730
We recognize that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain [1993]). The Court, therefore, must look askance at unmeritorious
circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair moves that could give a dent in the efficient and effective
trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs. Alejandro, et al., we held that to administration of justice.
warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation Same; Same; The validity and merits of a party’s defense or
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply accusation as well as the admissibility or inadmissibility of
that they might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, testimonies and evidence are better ventilated during the trial stage
we find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and than in the preliminary investigation level.—Petitioners
content of the publicity that attended the investigation of characterize the evidence against them to be inherently weak and
petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ uncorroborated vis-a-vis their defenses. The weight or sufficiency of
Panel. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of evidence, to my mind, is best assayed in the trial proper. In the
publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are search for truth, a trial has distinct merits over a preliminary
basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be sure, the DOJ investigation. We have had occasion to stress that trial is to be
Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior preferred to ferret out the truth (Abugotal v. Tiro, 66 SCRA 196, 201
State Prosecutors. Their long experience in criminal investigation is [1975]). The validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation as
a well as the admissibility or inadmissibility of testimonies and
660 evidence are better ventilated during the trial stage than in the
preliminary investigation level. The ineluctable media attention
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
notwithstanding, truth as to their innocence or guilt is still best
Webb vs. De Leon determined at the trial.
factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be Same; Same; Warrant of Arrest; The judge does not have to
blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in order to
issue a warrant of arrest as he can rely on the certification of the
FRANCISCO, J., Concurring: 661
 VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 661 PUNO, J.:
Webb vs. De Leon
prosecutors.—With respect to petitioners’ contention that Before the Court are petitions for the issuance of the
public respondent judge failed to personally examine and determine extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, suffice with application for temporary restraining order and
it to say that the judge does not have to personally examine the preliminary
complainant and his witnesses in order to issue a warrant of arrest 662
as he can rely on the certification of the prosecutor/s (Circular No. 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
12-Guidelines on Issuance of Warrants of Arrests [June 30, Webb vs. De Leon
1987]; Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393, 398 [1988]). There is injunction to: (1) annul and set aside the Warrants of Arrest
ample evidence and sufficient basis on record that support the trial issued against petitioners by respondent Judges Raul E. de
court’s issuance of the warrant as petitioners themselves do not
Leon and Amelita Tolentino in Criminal Case No. 95-404; (2)
contend that the prosecutors’ certification was unaccompanied by
the records of the preliminary investigation to take their case enjoin the respondents from conducting any proceeding in the
outside the ambit of the rule. Moreover, contrary to what the aforementioned criminal case; and (3) dismiss said criminal
petitioners imply, the Court may not determine how cursory or case or include Jessica Alfaro as one of the accused therein.
1

exhaustive the judge’s examination of the certification, report and From the records of the case, it appears that on June 19,
findings of the preliminary investigation and its annexes should be 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with
as this depends not only upon the sound exercise of the judge’s the Department of Justice a letter-complaint charging
discretion in personally determining the existence of probable petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J.
cause, but also from the circumstances of each case (Lim, Sr. v. Lejano and six (6) other persons, with the crime of Rape with
2

Felix, 194 SCRA 292, 306 [1991]). Besides, respondent judge, being Homicide. Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a
a public officer, enjoys the presumption of regularity in the panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State
performance of his duties (Rule 131, Sec. 3 [m], Rules of Court). The
Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuño to conduct the preliminary
issuance of the warrants of arrest against petitioners thus can not
be said to be whimsical or arbitrary. investigation of those charged with the rape and killing on
3

June 30, 1991 of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita

4

PETITIONS for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their
5 6

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. home at Number 80 W. Vinzons, St., BF Homes, Parañaque,
Metro Manila.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. During the preliminary investigation, the NBI presented
R.A.V. Saguisag and Robles, Ricafrente & Aguirre Law the following: (1) the sworn statement dated May 22, 1995 of
Firm for Hubert Webb. their principal witness, Maria Jessica M. Alfaro who allegedly
Florante A. Bautista, Manuel M. Sunga and Rene B. saw the commission of the crime; (2) the sworn statements of
7

Gorospe for Michael Gatchalian. two (2) of the former housemaids of the Webb family in the
Perlas, Mendoza, Chan & Garciano for Antonio Lejano. persons of Nerissa E. Rosales and Mila S. Gaviola; (3) the
8

Renato L. Cayetano and Ma. Larrie Alinsunurin for sworn-statement of Carlos J. Cristobal who alleged that on
Lauro Vizconde (complainant-intervenor). March 9, 1991 he was
________________
 1 Petitioner Webb filed his petition on August 11, 1995; petitioner 3. (c)Sworn Statements of Gerardo C. Biong (other than
Gatchalian on August 14, 1995 and petitioner Lejano on August 16, 1995. Mr.
his Sworn Statement dated October 7, 1991);
Lauro Vizconde intervened on August 17, 1995.
2 The six (6) others were Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, Joey Filart, Hospicio 4. (d)Photographs of fingerprints lifted from the Vizconde
“Pyke” Fernandez, Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong. residence taken during the investigation;
3 The other members of the Panel were Senior State Prosecutor Leonardo
5. (e)Investigation records of NBI on Engr. Danilo Aguas,
C. Guiab, Jr., State Prosecutor Roberto A. Lao and State Prosecutor Pablo C.
Formaran, III.
et al.;
4 Then 19 years of age. 6. (f)List of names of 135 suspects/persons investigated by
5 Then 51 years of age.
the NBI per Progress Report dated September 2, 1991
6 Then 7 years of age.
submitted by Atty. Arlis Vela, Supervising Agent;
7 Resolution of the Zuño Panel, Annex “A” Petition, pp. 2-7.

8 Ibid, pp. 7-8.

7. (g)Records of arrest, interview, investigation and other
written statements of Jessica Alfaro (other than the
663 May 22, 1995 Sworn Statement) conducted by the NBI
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 663 and other police agencies;
Webb vs. De Leon 8. (h)transmittal letter to the NBI, including the report of
York and who expressed doubt on whether petitioner Webb the investigation conducted by Superintendent
was his co-passenger in the trip; (4) the sworn statement Rodolfo C. Sison, Regional Deputy Director, NCRC;
of Lolita Birrer, a former live-in partner of Gerardo Biong, who
narrated the manner of how Biong investigated and tried to _____________
cover up the crime at bar; (5) the sworn statements of Belen
9

Ibid, pp. 8-12.

Dometita and Teofilo Minoza, two of the Vizconde maids, and
9

10 Ibid, p. 13.
the sworn statements of Normal White, a security guard 11 Ibid.

and Manciano Gatmaitan, an engineer. The autopsy reports of

664
the victims were also submitted and they showed that
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Carmela had nine (9) stab wounds, Estrellita twelve (12) and
Jennifer nineteen (19). The genital examination of Carmela
10
Webb vs. De Leon
confirmed the presence of spermatozoa. 11

Before submitting his counter-affidavit, petitioner Webb 1. (i)The names of NBI officials/agents composing the
filed with the DOJ Panel a Motion for Production and Task Force Jecares, including their respective
Examination of Evidence and Documents for the NBI to positions and duties;
produce the following: 2. (j)Statements made by other persons in connection with
the crime charged.”
1. “(a)Certification issued by the U.S. Federal Bureau of
Investigation on the admission to and stay of Hubert The motion was granted by the DOJ Panel and the NBI
Webb in the United States from March 9, 1991 to submitted photocopies of the documents. It alleged it lost the
October 22, 1992; original of the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro. This
2. (b)Laboratory Report No. SN-91-17 of the Medico Legal compelled petitioner Webb to file Civil Case No. 951099 in the
Officer, Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, M.D.; Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Br. 63, for the purpose,
among others, of obtaining the original of said sworn Rodriguez and Gerardo Biong—submitted sworn statements,
statement. He succeeded, for in the course of its proceedings, responses, and a motion to dismiss denying their complicity in
Atty. Arturo L. Mercader, Jr., produced a copy of said original the rape-killing of the Vizcondes. Only the respondents Joey
16

in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. The original was Filart and Artemio “Dong” Ventura failed to file their counter-
then submitted by petitioner Webb to the DOJ Panel together affidavits though they were served with subpoena in their last
with his other evidence. It appears, however, that petitioner known address. In
17 his sworn statement,
Webb failed to obtain from the NBI the copy of the Federal petitioner Gatchalian alleged that from 11 o’clock in the
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Report despite his request for evening of June 29, 1991 until 3 o’clock in the morning of the
its production. following day, he was at the residence of his friends, Carlos
Petitioner Webb claimed during the preliminary and Andrew Syyap, at New Alabang Village, Muntinlupa
investigation that he did not commit the crime at bar as he watching video tapes. He claimed that his co-
went to the United States on March 1, 1991 and returned to petitioner Lejano was with him.
the Philippines on October 27, 1992. His alibi was
12 On August 8, 1995, the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page
corroborated by Honesto Aragon, Lecinia Edrosolano, Sylvia Resolution “finding probable cause to hold respondents for
Climaco, Gina Roque, Sonia Rodriguez, Edgardo Ventura and trial” and recommending that an Information for rape with
Pamela Francisco. To further support his defense, he
13 homicide be filed against petitioners and their co-
submitted documentary evidence that he bought a bicycle and respondents. On the same date, it filed the corresponding
18

a 1986 Toyota car while in the United States on said Information against petitioners and their co-accused with the
19

dates and that he was issued by the State of California

14 Regional Trial Court of Parañaque. The case was docketed as
Driver’s License No. A8818707 on June 14, 1991. Petitioner
15 Criminal Case No. 95-404 and raffled to Branch 258 presided
Webb likewise submitted the letter dated July 25, 1995 of Mr. by respondent judge Zosimo V. Escano. It was, however, the
Robert Heafner, Legal Attache of the US Embassy, citing respondent judge Raul de Leon, pairing judge of Judge Escano,
certain records tending to confirm, among others, his arrival who issued the warrants of arrest against the petitioners. On
at San Francisco, California on March 9, 1991 as a passenger August 11, 1995, Judge Escano voluntarily inhibited himself
in United Airlines Flight No. 808. from the case to avoid any suspicion about his impartiality
The other respondents—Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, considering his employment with the NBI before his
Michael Gatchalian, Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Peter appointment to the bench. The case was re-raffled to Branch
Estrada, Miguel 274, presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued new
______________ warrants of arrest against the petitioners and their co-
accused. On August 11, 1995, petitioner Webb voluntarily
12 Ibid, pp. 13-14.
13 Ibid, pp. 13-14. surrendered to the police authorities at Camp Ricardo Papa
14 Ibid, p. 14-16. Sr., in Bicutan, Taguig. Petitioners Gatchalian and Lejano
15 Ibid, p. 15.
likewise gave themselves up to the authorities after filing
665 their petitions before us.
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 665 In their petitions at bar, petitioners contend: (1) respondent
Webb vs. De Leon Judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abused their discretion
______________
 16 Ibid, pp. 16-18. outlines the procedure in conducting a preliminary
Ibid, p. 18.
investigation, thus:
17

18 Except Gerardo Biong who was recommended to be charged as an

accessory. “SEC. 3. Procedure.—Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no

19 Annex “B,” Petition. complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having
666 been first conducted in the following manner:
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Webb vs. De Leon 1. (a)The complaint shall state the known address of the
when they failed to conduct a preliminary examination before respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the
issuing warrants of arrest against them; (2) the DOJ Panel complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting
likewise gravely abused its discretion in holding that there is documents, in such number of copies as there are
probable cause to charge them with the crime of rape with respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file.
homicide; (3) the DOJ Panel denied them their constitutional
667
right to due process during their preliminary investigation;
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 667
and (4) the DOJ Panel unlawfully intruded into judicial
prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the Webb vs. De Leon
Information as an accused.
1. The said affidavits shall be sworn to before any fiscal, state
We find the petitions bereft of merit.
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer
oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, a notary public,
I
who must certify that he personally examined the affiants
and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable
understood their affidavits.
cause. They insist that the May 22, 1995 sworn statement of 2. (b)Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
Jessica Alfaro is inherently weak and uncorroborated. They investigating officer shall either dismiss the same if he
hammer on alleged material inconsistencies between her April finds no ground to continue with the inquiry, or issue a
28, 1995 and May 22, 1995 sworn statements. They assail her subpoena to the respondent, attaching thereto a copy of the
credibility for her misdescription of petitioner Webb’s hair as complaint, affidavits and other supporting documents.
semi-blonde. They also criticize the procedure followed by the Within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, the respondent
DOJ Panel when it did not examine witnesses to clarify the shall submit counter-affidavits and other supporting
alleged incredulities and inconsistencies in the sworn documents. He shall have the right to examine all other
statements of the witnesses for the NBI. evidence submitted by the complainant.
We start with a restatement of the purpose of a preliminary 3. (c)Such counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence
submitted by the respondent shall also be sworn to and
investigation. Section 1 of Rule 112 provides that a
certified as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof and copies
preliminary investigation should determine “x x x x whether
thereof shall be furnished by him to the complainant.
there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief 4. (d)If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed,
that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, period, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on
and should be held for trial.” Section 3 of the same Rule the evidence presented by the complainant.
 5. (e)If the investigating officer believes that there are matters reasonable caution or the term ordinarily prudent and
23

to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound cautious man. The terms are legally synonymous and their
24

clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, reference is not to a person with training in the law such as a
during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity prosecutor or a judge but to the average man on the street. It 25

to be present but without the right to examine or cross-

ought to be emphasized that in determining probable cause,
examine. If the parties so desire, they may submit questions
the average man weighs facts and circumstances without
to the investigating officer which the latter may propound
to the parties or witnesses concerned. resorting to the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence
6. (f)Thereafter, the investigation shall be deemed concluded, of which his knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus
and the investigating officer shall resolve the case within of common sense of which all reasonable men have an
ten (10) days therefrom. Upon the evidence thus adduced, abundance.
the investigating officer shall determine whether or not Applying these basic norms, we are not prepared to rule
there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.” that the DOJ Panel gravely abused its discretion when it
found probable cause against the petitioners. Petitioners
Section 4 of Rule 112 then directs that “if the investigating belittle the truthfulness of Alfaro on two (2) grounds: (a) she
fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall allegedly erroneously described petitioner Webb’s hair as
prepare the resolution and corresponding information. He semi-blond and (b) she committed material inconsistencies in
shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an her two (2) sworn statements, thus: 26

authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant “x x x

and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe “To illustrate, the following are some examples of inconsistencies
that a crime has been committed and that the accused is in the two sworn statements of Alfaro:
______________
probably guilty thereof x x x.”
The need to find probable cause is dictated by the Bill of 20 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Rights which protects “the right of the people to be secure in 21 Yee Sue Koy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141 [1940].
22 Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, a Commentary,
their
Vol. I, 1987 ed., pp. 86-87.
668 23 Brinegar v. US, 338 US 160 [1949].

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 24 Del Carmen, Criminal Procedure, Law and Practice, 3rd ed., p. 86.

25 Ibid.
Webb vs. De Leon
26 Petition, pp. 18-19.

persons x x x against unreasonable searches and seizures of

whatever nature x x x.” An arrest without a probable cause is
20 669
an unreasonable seizure of a person, and violates the privacy VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 669
of persons which ought not to be intruded by the Webb vs. De Leon
State. Probable cause to warrant arrest is not an opaque
21 On whether Alfaro knew Carmela before the incident in question
concept in our jurisdiction. Continuing accretions of case law First Affidavit: She had NOT met Carmela before June 29, 1991.
Second Affidavit: ‘I met her in a party sometime in February, 1991.’
reiterate that they are facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an On whether Alfaro saw the dead bodies
offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested. Other jurisdictions utilize the term man of
22
 First Affidavit: She did not see the three dead persons on that during and after the commission of the crime, showing that the
night. She just said ‘on the following day I read in the newspaper several accused had acted in concert or in unison with each other,
that there were three persons who were killed x x x’ evincing a common purpose or design.’ (Angelo vs. Court of
Second Affidavit: ‘I peeped through the first door on the left. I Appeals, 210 SCRA 402 [1992], citations omitted; People vs.
saw two bodies on top of the bed, bloodied, and in the floor, I saw Molleda, 86 SCRA 699).
Hubert on top of Carmela.’ On the alleged rape of Carmela Vizconde Neither can we discredit Alfaro merely because of the
First Affidavit: She did not see the act of rape. inconsistencies in her two sworn statements. In Angelo, the Court
Second Affidavit: She saw Hubert Webb ‘with bare buttocks, on top of refused to discredit the testimony of a witness accusing therein
Carmela and pumping, her mouth gagged and she was moaning and I saw petitioner for the slaying of one Gaviano Samaniego even though
tears on her eyes.’ said witness failed to name Angelo in his affidavit which was
On how Webb, Lejano, and Ventura entered the Vizconde house executed five (5) months earlier. Granting, the Court continued,
First Affidavit: ‘By jumping over the fence, which was only a little more that a part of the witness’ testimony is untrue, such circumstance is
than a meter high.’ not sufficient to discredit the entire testimony of the witness.
Second Affidavit: They ‘entered the gate which was already open.’ On August 7, 1995, another counsel for respondent Webb
submitted his memorandum suggesting that the instant complaint
On whether Alfaro entered the Vizconde house
‘should not be decided within the month to give time to the NBI to
First Affidavit: She never entered the house.
Second Affidavit: ‘I proceeded to the iron grill gate leading to the dirty
coordinate with the FBI on the latter’s inquiry into the whereabouts
kitchen.’” of Hubert Webb x x x and to check on our U.S.-based witnesses.’
In said memorandum, counsel for respondent Webb calls for the
In its Resolution, the DOJ Panel ruled that these alleged application of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus arising
misdescription and inconsistencies did not erode the from the inconsistencies of Alfaro’s statements, among others. This
credibility of Alfaro. We quote the pertinent ruling, viz: 27 is untenable. As held in Angelo:
____________ ‘There is no rule of law which prohibits a court from crediting part of the
testimony of a witness as worthy of belief and from simultaneously
27 Annex “A,” Petition, pp. 25-27. rejecting other parts which the court may find incredible or dubious.
The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law, let alone a
670 general rule of law which is universally applicable. It is not a legal
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED presumption either. It is merely a latinism describing the conclusion
Webb vs. De Leon reached by a court in a particular case after ascribing to the evidence such
weight or lack of weight that the court deemed proper.’
“x x x.
“As regards the admissibility of Alfaro’s statements, granting for 671
purposes of argument merely that she is a co-conspirator, it is well VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 671
to note that confessions of a co-conspirator may be taken as evidence Webb vs. De Leon
to show the probability of the co-conspirator’s participation in the
In the case before us, complainant reasoned out that Alfaro was
commission of the crime (see People vs. Lumahang, 94 Phil. 1084).
then having reservations when she first executed the first statement
Furthermore, it is a well-established doctrine that conspiracy
and held back vital information due to her natural reaction of
need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit
mistrust. This being so, the panel believes that the inconsistencies
the crime. Indeed, ‘only rarely would such a prior agreement be
in Alfaro’s two sworn statements have been sufficiently explained
demonstrable since, in the nature of things, criminal undertakings
especially so where there is no showing that the inconsistencies
are only rarely documented by agreements in writing. Thus,
were deliberately made to distort the truth. Consequently, the
conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before,
probative value of Alfaro’s testimony deserves full faith and credit. woke up at around 4:00 in the morning and as what she used to do,
As it has been often noted, ex parte statements are generally she entered the rooms of the Webbs to get their clothes to be washed.
incomplete because they are usually executed when the affiant’s As a matter of fact, in that early morning, she entered Hubert’s room
state of mind does not give her sufficient and fair opportunity to and saw Hubert, who was only wearing his pants, already awake
comprehend the import of her statement and to narrate in full the and smoking while he was sitting on his bed. She picked up Hubert’s
incidents which transpired (People vs. Sarellana, 233 SCRA scattered clothes and brought them together with the clothes of the
31 [1994]; Angelo vs. Court of Appeals, supra). In the case at bar, other members of the family to the laundry area. After taking her
there is no dispute that a crime has been committed and what is breakfast, she began washing the clothes of the Webbs. As she was
clear before us is that the totality of the evidence submitted by the washing the clothes of Hubert Webb, she noticed fresh bloodstains
complainant indicate a prima facie case that respondents conspired in his shirt. After she finished the laundry, she went to the servant’s
in the perpetration of the imputed offense.” quarters. But feeling uneasy, she decided to go up to the stockroom
near Hubert’s room to see what he was doing. In the said stockroom,
We note that the May 22, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro was there is a small door going to Hubert’s room and in that door there
given with the assistance of counsel and consists of six (6)
28
is a small opening where she used to see Hubert and his friends
pages, in single space reciting in rich details how the crime sniffing on something. She observed Hubert was quite irritated,
was planned and then executed by the petitioners. In addition, uneasy, and walked to and from inside his room.
the DOJ Panel evaluated the supporting sworn statements of On that day, she noticed Hubert left the house at around 1:00 in
Nerissa Rosales and Mila Gaviola, former housemaids of the the afternoon and came back at around 4:00 in the same afternoon
Webbs, Carlos J. Cristobal, a passenger in United Airlines and went inside his room using the secret door of the house. It was
Flight No. 808 and Lolita Birrer, a paramour of Gerardo the last time that she saw Hubert until she left the Webb family.
Biong. The Panel assayed their statements as follows: 29
On the other hand, Carlos J. Cristobal, alleged that on March 9,
1991, at about 10:00 in the morning, he was at the Ninoy Aquino
“x x x.
International Airport as he was then scheduled to take the United
“According to Nerissa E. Rosales, a former housemaid of the
Webb family, on June 29, 1991, between 7:00 o’clock and 8:00 o’clock Airlines Flight No. 808 at 2:00 in the afternoon for New York. At the
airport’s lobby, he saw then Congressman Freddie Webb with a
in the evening, Hubert was at home inside his room with two male
male companion. He greeted him and Webb answered: ‘Mabuti
visitors. She knew it because she and her co-housemaid, Loany,
naman, at ito, ihahatid ko ang anak ko papuntang Florida.’ He knew
were instructed by Hubert to bring them three glasses of juice. It
Freddie Webb because he often watched him then in a television
was the last time she saw Hubert and was later told by then
show ‘Chicks to Chicks.’ He observed that the man whom Freddie
Congressman Webb that Hubert was in the United States.
While Mila S. Gaviola, another former housemaid of the Webb Webb referred to as his son, was of the same height as Freddie. The
son referred to has fair complexion with no distinguishing marks on
family and who served as a laundry woman, claims, aside from
his face. He (son of Webb) was then wearing a striped white jacket.
corroborating the statement of Nerissa Rosales, that on June 30,
When he and his children were already inside the plane, he did not
1991, she
________________ see Freddie anymore, but he noticed his son was seated at the front
portion of the economy class. He never noticed Freddie Webb’s son
28 Atty. Florante Dizon, a counsel of choice. upon their arrival in San Francisco. He claims that while watching
29 Annex “A,” Petition, pp. 11-17. the television program ‘DONG PUNO LIVE’ lately, he saw the wife
672 of Freddie Webb with her lawyer being interviewed, and when she
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED described Hubert as ‘moreno’ and small built, with a height of five
feet and seven inches tall, and who was the one who left for United
Webb vs. De Leon
States on March 9, 1991, he nurtured doubts because such patay sa BF, imbestigahan mo’ to which Biong answered, ‘Oo
description does not fit the physical traits of the son of Freddie, who susunod na ako.’ Biong went to the office of Capt. Don Bartolome
left with him for United States on the same flight and date. who offered to accompany him and with whom she asked permission
Lolita Birrer, alleged that she know Gerardo Biong because she to go with them. Before they proceeded to the place where the
had an affair with him for almost three (3) years and in fact, she had killings happened, she asked Biong if he knew the exact address and
a the latter immediately responded, ‘Alam ko na yon.’ She was
surprised because Galvan never told him the place of the incident.
673
As soon as they arrived at the Vizconde’s residence, Biong
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 673 instructed the housemaids to contact the victim’s relatives, while
Webb vs. De Leon the security guard fetched the barangay chairman and the president
child with him who is now four (4) years old. Their relationship of the Homeowners Association. When all these persons were
started in February, 1991 until she broke up with him in September already in the house, Biong started recording the wounds of the
1993. She recalls that on June 29, 1991, at around 6:00 p.m., Biong victim. Inside the master’s bedroom, she saw Biong took a watch
invited her to play mahjong at the canteen of a certain Aling Glo from the jewelry box. Because she could not tolerate the foul odor,
located at the back of the Parañaque Municipal Hall. she and Capt. Bartolome went out of the room and proceeded to the
At about 2:30 in the early morning of June 30, 1991, the radio dining area. On top of the
operator of the Parañaque police told Biong that he has a phone call.
Before Biong went to the radio room, she was instructed to take him 674
over and after somebody won the game, she followed Biong at the 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
radio room where she overheard him uttering, ‘Ano?, Saan?, Webb vs. De Leon
Mahirap yan, Paano, o sige, aantayin kita, O ano?,dilaw na taxi, o dining table, she saw the scattered contents of a shoulder bag.
sige.’ When he put the phone down, Biong told her, Mayroon lang Moments later, Biong came out from the room and proceeded to the
akong rerespondehan, ikaw muna ang maupo’ and then, he went front door to remove the chain lock; asked the keys from the
outside the canteen apparently waiting for somebody. Twenty housemaid and it was only then that the main door was opened.
minutes later, a taxi, colored yellow, arrived with a male passenger Biong noticed a stone in front of the broken glass of the door and
sitting at the backseat and parked near the canteen. After it made requested Capt. Bartolome to go inside the servant’s quarters as he
some signals by blinking its headlight, Biong rode thereat at the doubted the housemaids’ claim that they heard nothing unusual.
front seat beside the driver and then, they left. She was not able to Using the handle of his gun, Biong broke the remaining glass of the
recognize the male passenger because the window of the taxi was door panel. Bartolome then came out of the room and told Biong that
tinted. Biong came back at around 7:00 of the same morning and he can hear the sound of the glass being broken. At the garage,
when he arrived, he immediately washed his hands and face, and Biong also noticed same marks on the hood of the car.
took his handkerchief from his pocket which he threw at the trash On the following day, at around 12:00 noon, Biong arrived in her
can. She asked him why he threw his handkerchief and he house together with the Vizconde housemaids. When Biong was
answered, ‘Hmp . . . amoy tae.’ She inquired what happened in BF preparing to take a bath, she saw him remove from his pocket the
Homes and he replied, ‘Putang inang mga batang iyon,pinahirapan things she also saw from Vizconde’s residence, to wit: calling cards,
nila ako.’ driver’s license, ATM card, a crossed check worth P80,000.00,
Biong later invited her for breakfast, but they first went to his earrings, a ring, bracelet, necklace, and the watch he took from the
office where she observed him doing something in his steel cabinet jewelry box inside the room of the Vizcondes. These jewelry items
while he appeared to be uneasy. Moments later, Galvan, another were later pawned by Biong for P20,000.00 at a pawnshop in-front
policeman of Parañaque, arrived and said, ‘Oy Biong, may tatlong of Chow-Chow restaurant in Santos Avenue, Parañaque. The next
day, she saw Biong took from his locker at the Parañaque Police witness for the prosecution (People vs. Onpaid, 233 SCRA
Station an imported brown leather jacket, which the latter claimed 62 [1994]).
to have been given to him by the person who called him up in the Surprisingly, Gatchalian’s defense of alibi was not corroborated
early morning of June 30, 1991. by Lejano, whom he claimed was with him watching video tapes at
Since then, Biong has been wearing said jacket until they broke the Syyap residence. Other than claiming that he “was not and could
up sometime in 1993. She observed that Biong seemed not not have been at or near the area of the Vizconde residence at the
interested in pursuing the investigation of the Vizconde case. In time of the alleged commission of the crime,”
fact, when Biong and this group picked up Mike Gatchalian and respondent Lejano proffered no evidence to substantiate his claim of
brought him to the Parañaque Police Station, she was surprised alibi.
that Biong halted the investigation when Gatchalian was profusely x x x.
sweating while being interrogated. After the father of Gatchalian On the other hand, respondent Webb seeks to enhance the
talked to Colonel Pureza, the latter called up and instructed Biong acceptability of his alibi in the form of documents tending to show
to bring Gatchalian to him (Colonel Pureza) and that was the last that he was thousands of miles away when the incident occurred.
thing she remembered regarding this case.” We have carefully deliberated and argued on the evidence submitted
by respondent Webb in support of his absence from the country since
The DOJ Panel then weighed these inculpatory evidence March 9, 1991 to October 26, 1992 and found the same wanting to
against the exculpatory evidence of petitioners. It ruled: 30
exonerate him of the offense charged. The material dates in this case
“x x x. are June 29 and 30, 1991. While respondent Webb may have
“The voluminous number of exhibits submitted by respondent submitted proof tending to show that he was issued a California
Webb to support his defense of denial and alibi notwithstanding, the driver’s license on June 14, 1991, there is no showing that he could
panel, after a careful and thorough evaluation of the records, not have been in the country on the dates above mentioned. Neither
believes do we find merit in the allegation that respondent Webb personally
______________
bought a bicycle on June 30, 1991 in California in view of his positive
30 Annex “A,” Petition, pp. 23-24.
identification by Alfaro and the two (2) househelps of the Webb
family who testified that he was here in the country on said dates.
675 Additionally, the issuance of receipt evidencing the purchase of a
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 675 bicycle in California is no conclusive proof that the name appearing
Webb vs. De Leon thereon was the actual buyer of the merchandise.”
that they cannot outweigh the evidence submitted by the
Given these conflicting pieces of evidence of the NBI and the
complainant. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification
made by a prosecution witness. Verily, alibi deserves scant petitioners, we hold that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse
consideration in the face of positive identification especially so its discretion when it found probable cause against the
where the claim of alibi is supported mainly by friends and relatives petitioners. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
(People vs. Apolonia, 235 SCRA 124 [1994]; People vs. Lucas, 181 evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been
SCRA 316 and a long line of cases). committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause
Similarly, denial is a self-serving negative which cannot be given need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness neither on
who testified on affirmative matters (People vs. Carizo, 233 SCRA 676
687 [1994]) Indeed, denial, like alibi, is weak and becomes even 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
more weaker when arrayed against the positive identification by the Webb vs. De Leon
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and mere accessory had a “NO BAIL” recommendation by the DOJ
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of Panel.
guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable
31 _______________
cause demands more than “bare suspicion,” it requires “less 31 338 US 160 [1949].
than evidence which would justify x x x conviction.” A finding
of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. 677
It is not a pronouncement of guilt. VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 677
Considering the low quantum and quality of evidence Webb vs. De Leon
needed to support a finding of probable cause, we also hold Petitioners postulate that it was impossible to conduct a
that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion in “searching examination of witnesses and evaluation of the
refusing to call the NBI witnesses for clarificatory questions. documents” on the part of said judges.
The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is The issuance of a warrant of arrest interferes with
addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator and the individual liberty and is regulated by no less than the
investigator alone. If the evidence on hand already yields a fundamental law of the land. Section 2 of Article III of the
probable cause, the investigator need not hold a clarificatory Constitution provides:
hearing. To repeat, probable cause merely implies probability “Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner. papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and it is only in whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
accusers to establish his innocence. In the case at bar, the DOJ may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched
Panel correctly adjudged that enough evidence had been and the persons or things to be seized.”
adduced to establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing
was unnecessary. The aforequoted provision deals with the requirements of
probable cause both with respect to issuance of warrants of
II arrest and search warrants. The similarities and differences
of their requirements ought to be educational. Some of them
We now come to the charge of petitioners that respondent are pointed out by Professors LaFave and Israel, thus: “It is 32

Judge Raul de Leon and, later, respondent Judge Amelita generally assumed that the same quantum of evidence is
Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them without required whether one is concerned with probable cause to
conducting the required preliminary examination. Petitioners arrest or probable cause to search. But each requires a
support their stance by highlighting the following facts: (1) the showing of probabilities as to somewhat different facts and
issuance of warrants of arrest in a matter of few hours; (2) the circumstances, and thus one can exist without the other. In
failure of said judges to issue orders of arrest; (3) the records search cases, two conclusions must be supported by
submitted to the trial court were incomplete and insufficient substantial evidence: that the items sought are in fact seizable
from which to base a finding of probable cause; and (4) that by virtue of being connected with criminal activity, and that
even Gerardo Biong who was included in the Information as a the items will be found in the place to be searched. It is not
also necessary that a particular person be implicated. By We discussed the difference in the procedure of issuing
comparison, in arrest cases there must be probable cause that warrants of arrest and search warrants in Soliven vs.
a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested Makasiar, thus:33

committed it, which of course can exist without any showing “x x x

that evidence of the crime will be found at premises under that “The second issue, raised by Beltran, calls for an interpretation
person’s control.” Worthy to note, our Rules of Court do not of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest.
provide for a similar procedure to be followed in the issuance The pertinent provision reads:
‘Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
of warrants of arrest and search warrants. With respect to papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
war- nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
_____________ warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
32 LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure, Hornbook Series, 1985 ed., pp.
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
109-110.
____________
678
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 33 167 SCRA 397-398.
Webb vs. De Leon 679
rants of arrest, section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 679
“upon filing of an information, the Regional Trial Court may Webb vs. De Leon
issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.” In contrast, the describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.’
procedure to be followed in issuing search warrants is more
defined. Thus, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 126 provide: The addition of the word ‘personally’ after the word ‘determined’
“x x x and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution
“Sec. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant to issue warrants to ‘other responsible officers as may be authorized
shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one by law,’ has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the
specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate
be searched and the things to be seized. interpretation.
Sec. 4. Examination of complainant; record.—The judge must, What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable
complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required
known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following
together with any affidavits submitted. established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate
Sec. 5. Issuance and form of search warrant.—If the judge is the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
thereupon satisfied of the facts upon which the application is based, regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he must issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the
prescribed by these Rules.”
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in The fact that it took the respondent judges a few hours to
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. review and affirm the probable cause determination of the
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be DOJ Panel does not mean they made no personal evaluation
unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of the evidence attached to the records of the case. 36

of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and

Petitioners’ reliance on the case of Allado vs. Diokno is 37

deciding cases filed before their courts.”

misplaced. Our Allado ruling is predicated on the utter failure
Clearly then, the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and our of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause. Not
case law repudiate the submission of petitioners that
34 even thecorpus delicti of the crime was established by the
respondent judges should have conducted “searching evidence of the prosecution in that case. Given the clear
examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants of arrest insufficiency of the evidence on record, we stressed the
against them. They also reject petitioners’ contention that a necessity for the trial judge to make a further personal
judge must first issue an order of arrest before issuing a examination of the complainant and his witnesses to reach a
warrant of arrest. There is no law or rule requiring the correct assessment of the existence or non-existence of
issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a warrant of arrest. probable cause before issuing warrants of arrest against the
In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial accused. The case at bar, however, rests on a different factual
court its 26-page report, the two (2) sworn statements of Alfaro setting. As priorly discussed, the various types of evidence
and the sworn statements of Carlos Cristobal and Lolita extant in the records of the case provide substantial basis for
Birrer as well as the counter-affidavits of the petitioners.
35 a finding of probable cause against the petitioner. The corpus
Apparently, the pains- delicti of the crime is a given fact. There is an eyewitness
_____________ account of the imputed crime given by Alfaro. The alibi defense
of petitioner Webb is also disputed by sworn statements of
34 See also Cruz, Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439 [1994].
35 See Annex “A,” Consolidated Comment of the Solicitor General. their former maids. It was therefore unnecessary for the
respondent judges to take the further step of examining ex
680
parte the complainant and their witnesses with searching
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED questions.
Webb vs. De Leon ____________
taking recital and analysis of the parties’ evidence made in the
See Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 [1990].
DOJ Panel Report satisfied both judges that there is probable
36

37 232 SCRA 192 [1994].

cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again,
we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely 681
determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 681
of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de Webb vs. De Leon
novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause.
They just personally review the initial determination of the III
prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported
by substantial evidence. The sufficiency of the review process Petitioners also complain about the denial of their
cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and hours. constitutional right to due process and violation of their right
to an impartial investigation. They decry their alleged hasty
and malicious prosecution by the NBI and the DOJ Panel. 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
They also assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their Webb vs. De Leon
preliminary investigation. It must also be pointed out that despite the declaration by the
We reject these contentions. The records will show that the DOJ Panel that the preliminary investigation was to be terminated
DOJ Panel did not conduct the preliminary investigation with after the hearing held on July 14, 1995, the panel continued to
indecent haste. Petitioners were given fair opportunity to conduct further proceedings, e.g., comparison of the photo-copies of
prove lack of probable cause against them. The fairness of this the submitted documents with the originals on July 17, 1995. (p. 7,
opportunity is well stressed in the Consolidated Comment of Petition) The panel even entertained the “Response” submitted by
accused Miguel Rodriguez on July 18, 1995. (p. 17, Resolution) In
the Solicitor General, viz:
addition to these, the panel even announced that any party may
“Again, there is no merit in this contention. Petitioners were
submit additional evidence before the resolution of the case. (p. 8,
afforded all the opportunities to be heard. Petitioner Webb actively
Petition) From the time the panel declared the termination of the
participated in the preliminary investigation by appearing in the
preliminary investigation on July 14, 1995,twenty-seven (27)
initial hearing held on June 30, 1995 and in the second hearing on
days elapsed before the resolution was promulgated, and the
July 14, 1995; and by filing a “Motion for Production and
information eventually filed in the Regional Trial Court of
Examination of Evidence and Documents” on June 27, 1995 (p. 4,
Parañaque on August 10, 1995. This notwithstanding the directive
Petition), a “Reply to the Compliance and Comment/Manifestation
of Section 3(f) Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court that the
to the Motion for Production and Examination of Evidence” on July
investigating officer shall resolve the case within ten (10) days from
5, 1995 (p. 6, Petition), a “Comment and Manifestation” on July 7,
the termination of the preliminary investigation. The DOJ Panel
1995 (p. 6, Petition), his “Counter-Affidavit” on July 14, 1995 (pp. 6-
precisely allowed the parties to adduce more evidence in their behalf
7, Petition) and a “Motion to Resolve” on August 1, 1995. Numerous
and for the panel to study the evidence submitted more fully. This
letter-requests were also sent by the petitioner Webb’s counsel to
directly disputes the allegation of the petitioners that the resolution
the DOJ Panel requesting the latter to furnish him a copy of the
of the preliminary investigation was done with indecent haste in
reports prepared by the FBI concerning the petitioner’s
violation of the rights of the petitioners. During the period of twenty-
whereabouts during the material period (Annexes “L”, “L-1” and “L-
seven (27) days, the petitioners were free to adduce and present
2” of the Supplemental Petition dated August 14, 1995). In fact, not
additional evidence before the DOJ Panel.
satisfied with the decision of the DOJ Panel not to issue subpoena
Verily, petitioners cannot now assert that they were denied due
duces tecum to Atty. Arturo L. Mercader, Jr., petitioner Webb filed
process during the conduct of the preliminary investigation simply
a “Petition for Injunction, Certiorari, Prohibition and
because the DOJ Panel promulgated the adverse resolution and
Mandamus” with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63 of Makati in
filed the Information in court against them.”
order to compel said Atty. Mercader, Jr. to produce the first sworn
statement of Alfaro for submission to the DOJ Panel. (p. 4, Petition) Petitioners cannot also assail as premature the filing of the
The said court dismissed the petition after Mercader produced and Information in court against them for rape with homicide on
submitted to the DOJ Panel the first sworn statement of Alfaro, the ground that they still have the right to appeal the adverse
without ruling on the admissibility and credence of the two (2)
resolution of the DOJ Panel to the Secretary of Justice. The
conflicting and inconsistent sworn statements of the principal
witness, Alfaro (Attached hereto is a copy of the order of Judge filing of said Information is in accord with Department of
Ruben A. Mendiola, RTC-Makati, Branch 63 dated July 28, 1995) Justice Order No. 223, series of 1993, dated June 25, 1993. We
marked as Annex “F.” 681 quote its pertinent sections, viz:
“SECTION 4. Non-Appealable Cases; Exceptions.—No appeal may
682 be taken from a resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional
State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the
cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of following circumstances are present:
discretion. Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave
abuse of discretion, no appeal shall be entertained where the 1. (a)the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave
appellant had already been arraigned. If the appellant is arraigned felony as defined under the R.P.C. or its equivalent under
during the pendency of the special laws;
2. (b)there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
683
3. (c)there is no other direct evidence available for the proper
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 683
prosecution of the offense committed;
Webb vs. De Leon 4. (d)his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its
appeal, said appeal shall be dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary material points;
of Justice. 5. (e)he does not appear to be most guilty; and
An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding 6. (f)he has not at anytime been convicted of any crime
probable cause, however, shall not hold the filing of the information
in court. 684
SECTION 2. When to Appeal.—The appeal must be filed within 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the questioned resolution Webb vs. De Leon
by the party or his counsel. The period shall be interrupted only by
the filing of a motion for reconsideration within ten (10) days from
1. involving moral turpitude.
receipt of the resolution and shall continue to run from the time the
resolution denying the motion shall have been received by the
movant or his counsel.” (Italics supplied) An accused discharged from an information or criminal
complaint by the court in order that he may be a State Witness
Without doubt then, the said DOJ Order No. 223 allows the pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
filing of an Information in court after the consummation of the Court may upon his petition be admitted to the Program if he
preliminary investigation even if the accused can still exercise complies with the other requirements of this Act. Nothing in this
the right to seek a review of the prosecutor’s recommendation Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused so that he can be used
as a Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.”
with the Secretary of Justice.
Next, petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for not including Upon qualification of Alfaro to the program, Section 12 of the
Alfaro in the Information considering her alleged said law mandates her non-inclusion in the criminal
conspiratorial participation in the crime of rape with Complaint or Information, thus:
homicide. The non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on Republic “x x x
Act No. 6981, entitled “An Act Providing For A Witness Sec. 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the
Protection, Security And Benefit Program And For Other Program.—The certification of admission into the Program by the
Purposes” enacted on April 24, 1991. Alfaro qualified under its Department shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or
Section 10, which provides: city prosecutor who is required NOT TO INCLUDE THE WITNESS
“x x x IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and if
“Sec. 10. State Witness.—Any person who has participated in the included therein, to petition the court for his discharge in order that
commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can he can be utilized as a State Witness. The court shall order the
apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the information.
 Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and
immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in who shall be granted immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of 39

which his testimony will be given or used and all the rights and Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the power to
benefits provided under Section 8 hereof. choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial
The validity of these provisions is challenged by petitioner prerogative. Under this provision, the court is given the power
Webb. It is urged that they constitute “x x x an intrusion into to discharge a state witness only because it has already
judicial prerogative for it is only the court which has the power acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The
under the Rules on Criminal Procedure to discharge an discharge of an accused is
______________
accused as a state witness.” The argument is based on Section
9, Rule 119 which
38
court is satisfied that:
______________
1. (a)There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
38SEC. 9. Discharge of accused to be state witness.—When two or more
discharge is requested;
persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of
2. (b)There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for
accused;
the state when after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the
3. (c)The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in
sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
its material points;
discharge, the
4. (d)Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
685 5. (e)Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 685 6. Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form
Webb vs. De Leon part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the
gives the court the prerogative to approve the discharge of an accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible
in evidence.
accused to be a state witness. Petitioner’s argument lacks
appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the decision 39 See Primer on the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act, (R.A. No.

whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative 6981) Department of Justice, p. 1.
of courts and beyond executive and legislative interference. In
686
truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
department of government whose principal power and
Webb vs. De Leon
responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A
necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an
right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests inherent judicial function. Moreover, the Rules of Court have
the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion—the discretion never been interpreted to be beyond change by legislation
of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which designed to improve the administration of our justice system.
depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best R.A. No. 6981 is one of the much sought penal reform laws to
appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not help government in its uphill fight against crime, one certain
constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. cause of which is the reticence of witnesses to testify. The
6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to rationale for the law is well put by the Department of Justice,
viz: “Witnesses, for fear of reprisal and economic dislocation, to assist them to make an intelligent plea at arraignment and
usually refuse to appear and testify in the to prepare for trial. 43

investigation/prosecution of criminal complaints/cases. This failure to provide discovery procedure during

Because of such refusal, criminal complaints/ cases have been preliminary investigation does not, however, negate its use by
dismissed for insufficiency and/or lack of evidence. For a more a person under investigation when indispensable to protect his
effective administration of criminal justice, there was a constitutional right to life, liberty and property. Preliminary
necessity to pass a law protecting witnesses and granting investigation is not too early a stage to guard against any
them certain rights and benefits to ensure their appearance in significant erosion of the constitutional right to due process of
investigative bodies/courts.” Petitioner Webb’s challenge to
40 a potential accused. As aforediscussed, the object of a
the validity of R.A. No. 6981 cannot therefore succeed. preliminary investigation is to determine the probability that
Further, petitioners charge the NBI with violating their the suspect committed a crime. We hold that the finding of a
right to discovery proceedings during their preliminary probable cause by itself subjects the suspect’s life, liberty and
investigation by suppressing the April 28, 1995 original copy property to real risk of loss or diminution. In the case at bar,
of the sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report. The the risk to the liberty of petitioners cannot be understated for
argument is novel in this jurisdiction and as it urges an they are charged with the crime of rape with homicide, a non-
expansive reading of the rights of persons under preliminary bailable offense when the evidence of guilt is strong.
investigation it deserves serious consideration. To start with, Attuned to the times, our Rules have discarded the pure
our Rules on Criminal Procedure do not expressly provide for inquisitorial system of preliminary investigation. Instead,
discovery proceedings during the preliminary investigation Rule 112 installed a quasi-judicial type of preliminary
stage of a criminal proceeding. Sections 10 and 11 of Rule 117
41 investigation conducted by one whose high duty is to be fair
do provide an accused the right to move for a bill of particulars and impartial. 44

and for production or inspection of material evidence in ______________

possession of the prosecution. 42

and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects and
____________
the details desired. (6a, R-116)
SEC. 11. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of
40 Op cit.
prosecution.—On motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to
41 In contrast, our Rules provide pre-trial discovery proceedings in civil
all parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration,
actions. See Rule 24 on Depositions and Discovery; Rule 25 on Interrogatories
may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying
to Parties; Rule 26 on Admission by Adverse Party; Rule 27 on Production or
or photographing, of any written statements given by the complainant and
Inspection of Documents or Things; Rule 28 on Physical and Mental
other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the
Examination of Persons and Rule 29 on Refusal to Make Discovery.
42 SEC. 10. Bill of particulars.—Accused may, at or before arraignment,
prosecution or any other investigating officers, as well as of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead
things, not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material
687 to any matter involved in the case, and which are in the possession or under
the control of the prosecution, the police, or any other law investigating
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 687 agencies. (8a, R-118)
Webb vs. De Leon 43 Note that Rule 116 is entitled Arraignment and Plea.

But these provisions apply after the filing of the Complaint or 44 Cruz, Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439.

Information in court and the rights are accorded to the accused 688
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ______________
Webb vs. De Leon 45 206 SCRA 138 [1992].
As this Court emphasized in Rolito Go vs. Court of 46 373 US 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d, 216 [1983].
Appeals, “the right to have a preliminary investigation
45 47 294 US 103, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 [1935].

48 See US v. Augurs, 427 US 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed 2d 342 [1976]; US

conducted before being bound over for trial for a criminal
v. Bagley, 473 US 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481
offense, and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some
other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a 689
substantive right.” A preliminary investigation should VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 689
therefore be scrupulously conducted so that the constitutional Webb vs. De Leon
right to liberty of a potential accused can be protected from Brady —“society wins not only when the guilty are convicted
49

any material damage. We uphold the legal basis of the right of but when criminal trials are fair.” Indeed, prosecutors should
petitioners to demand from their prosecutor, the NBI, the not treat litigation like a game of poker where surprises can
original copy of the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro be sprung and where gain by guile is not punished.
and the FBI Report during their preliminary investigation But given the right of petitioners to compel the NBI to
considering their exculpatory character, and hence, disclose exculpatory evidence in their favor, we are not
unquestionable materiality to the issue of their probable guilt. prepared to rule that the initial non-production of the original
The right is rooted on the constitutional protection of due sworn statement of Alfaro dated April 28, 1995 could have
process which we rule to be operational even during the resulted in the reasonable likelihood that the DOJ Panel
preliminary investigation of a potential accused. It is also would not have found probable cause. To be sure, the NBI, on
implicit in section (3) (a) of Rule 112 which requires during the July 4, 1995, upon request of petitioners, submitted a
preliminary investigation the filing of a sworn complaint photocopy of Alfaro’s April 28, 1995 sworn statement. It
which shall “x x x state the known address of the respondent explained it cannot produce the original as it had been lost.
and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his Fortunately, petitioners, on July 28, 1995, were able to obtain
witnesses as well as other supporting documents. x x x.” a copy of the original from Atty. Arturo Mercader in the course
In laying down this rule, the Court is not without of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 951099. As petitioners
50

enlightened precedents from other jurisdictions. In the 1963 admit, the DOJ Panel accepted the original of Alfaro’s April
watershed case of Brady v. Maryland the United States
46 28, 1995 sworn statement as a part of their
Supreme Court held that “suppression of evidence favorable to evidence. Petitioners thus had the fair chance to explain to
51

an accused upon request violates due process where the the DOJ Panel then still conducting their preliminary
evidence is material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the investigation the exculpatory aspects of this sworn statement.
good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Its progeny is the Unfortunately for petitioners, the DOJ Panel still found
1935 case of Mooney v. Holohan which laid down the
47 probable cause to charge them despite the alleged material
proposition that a prosecutor’s intentional use of perjured discrepancies between the first and second sworn statements
testimony to procure conviction violates due process. Thus, of Alfaro. For reasons we have expounded, this finding of
evolved jurisprudence firming up the prosecutor’s duty to probable cause cannot be struck down as done with grave
disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in its abuse of discretion. On the other hand, the FBI Report while
52

possession. The rationale is well put by Justice Brennan in

48 corroborative of the alibi of petitioner Webb cannot by itself
reverse the probable cause finding of the DOJ Panel in light of match the high volume and high velocity of publicity that
the totality of evidence presented by the NBI. attended the preliminary investigation of the case at bar. Our
Finally, we come to the argument of petitioner that the DOJ daily diet of facts and fiction about the case continues
Panel lost its impartiality due to the prejudicial publicity unabated even today. Commentators still bombard the public
waged with views not too many of which are sober and sublime.
_____________ Indeed, even the principal actors in the case—the NBI, the
respondents, their lawyers and their sympathizers—have
[1985];Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 US 39, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. ed 40
[1987]. participated in this media blitz. The possibility of media
49 Op cit. abuses and their threat to a fair trial notwithstanding,
50 Filed in Br. 63, RTC, Makati entitled Hubert Webb vs. Mercader, et al.
criminal trials cannot be completely closed to the press and
51 See Petition, page 7, par. 3.16.

52 We note that petitioner Webb does not complain that the xerox copy
the public. In the seminal case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
submitted by the NBI is different from the original produced by Atty. v. Virginia, it was wisely held:
53

Mercader. “x x x
“(a) The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal trial
690
in Anglo-American justice demonstrates conclusively that at the
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED time this Nation’s organic laws were adopted, criminal trials both
Webb vs. De Leon here and in England had long been presumptively open, thus giving
in the press and broadcast media by the NBI. assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to all
Again, petitioners raise the effect of prejudicial publicity on concerned and discouraging perjury, the misconduct of participants,
their right to due process while undergoing preliminary or decisions based
______________
investigation. We find no procedural impediment to its early
invocation considering the substantial risk to their liberty 53 445 US 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 [1980].
while undergoing a preliminary investigation.
691
In floating this issue, petitioners touch on some of the most
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 691
problematic areas in constitutional law where the conflicting
demands of freedom of speech and of the press, the public’s Webb vs. De Leon
right to information, and an accused’s right to a fair and on secret bias or partiality. In addition, the significant community
therapeutic value of public trials was recognized: when a shocking
impartial trial collide and compete for prioritization. The
crime occurs, a community reaction of outrage and public protest
process of pinpointing where the balance should be struck has often follows, and thereafter the open processes of justice serve an
divided men of learning as the balance keeps moving either on important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community
the side of liberty or on the side of order as the tumult of the concern, hostility, and emotion. To work effectively, it is important
time and the welfare of the people dictate. The dance of the that society’s criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance of
balance is a difficult act to follow. justice,’ Offutt v. United States, 348 US 11, 14, 99 L Ed 11, 75 S Ct
In democratic settings, media coverage of trials of 11, which can best be provided by allowing people to observe such
sensational cases cannot be avoided and oftentimes, its process. From this unbroken, uncontradicted history, supported by
excessiveness has been aggravated by kinetic developments in reasons as valid today as in centuries past, it must be concluded that
the telecommunications industry. For sure, few cases can a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal
trial under this Nation’s system of justice, Cf., e.g., Levine v. United might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, we
States, 362 US 610, 4 L Ed 2d 989, 80 S Ct 1038. find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and
(b) The freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, expressly content of the publicity that attended the investigation of
guaranteed by the First Amendment, share a common core purpose petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the
of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the
DOJ Panel. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal
functioning of government. In guaranteeing freedoms such as those
effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel,
of speech and press, the First Amendment can be read as protecting
the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to those for these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be
explicit guarantees; the First Amendment right to receive sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State
information and ideas means, in the context of trials, that the Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. Their long
guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in
government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg
long been open to the public at the time the First Amendment was lights of publicity. Indeed, their 26-page Resolution carries no
adopted. Moreover, the right of assembly is also relevant, having indubitable indicia of bias for it does not appear that they
been regarded not only as an independent right but also as a considered any extra-record evidence except evidence properly
catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First Amendment adduced by the parties. The length of time the investigation
rights with which it was deliberately linked by the draftsmen. A
was conducted despite its summary nature and the generosity
trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally—and
with which they accommodated the discovery motions of
representatives of the media—have a right to be present, and where
their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity petitioners speak well of their fairness. At no instance, we
and quality of what takes place. note, did petitioners seek the disqualification of any member
(c) Even though the Constitution contains no provision which by of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their
its terms guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal trials, bombardment of prejudicial publicity.
various fundamental rights, not expressly guaranteed, have been It all remains to state that the Vizconde case will move to a
recognized as indispensable to the enjoyment of enumerated rights. more critical stage as petitioners will now have to undergo
The right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of trial on the merits. We stress that probable cause is not
the First Amendment: without the freedom to attend such trials, synonymous with guilt and while the light of publicity may be
which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of a good disinfectant of unfairness, too much of its heat can
freedom of speech and of the press could be eviscerated.”
bring to flame an accused’s right to fair trial. Without
Be that as it may, we recognize that pervasive and prejudicial imposing on the trial judge the difficult task of supervising
publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused every specie of speech relating to the case at bar, it behooves
of his due process right to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. her to be reminded of the duty of a trial judge in high profile
vs. criminal cases to control publicity prejudicial to the fair
692 administration of justice. The Court reminds judges that our
55

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ability to dispense impartial justice is an issue in every trial
Webb vs. De Leon and in every criminal prosecution, the judi-
Alejandro, et al., we held that to warrant a finding of
54
____________
prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that 54 L-30894, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 106.
the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they 55 Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 600 [1966].
 693 of the courts will be unduly hampered by innumerable
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 693 petitions compelling the review of the exercise of discretion on
Webb vs. De Leon the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys if each time they
ciary always stands as a silent accused. More than convicting decide to file an information in court their
the guilty and acquitting the innocent, the business of the 694
judiciary is to assure fulfillment of the promise that justice 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
shall be done and is done—and that is the only way for the Webb vs. De Leon
judiciary to get an acquittal from the bar of public opinion. finding can be immediately brushed aside at the instance of
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions are dismissed for lack those charged (Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730
of showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [1993]). The Court, therefore, must look askance at
respondents. Costs against petitioners. unmeritorious moves that could give a dent in the efficient and
SO ORDERED. effective administration of justice.
Regalado, J., concur. Petitioners characterize the evidence against them to be
Narvasa (C.J.), On official leave. inherently weak and uncorroborated vis-a-vis their defenses.
Mendoza, J., I concur in the majority opinion of Justice The weight or sufficiency of evidence, to my mind, is best
Puno and in the separate opinion of Justice Francisco. assayed in the trial proper. In the search for truth, a trial has
Francisco, J., See concurring opinion. distinct merits over a preliminary investigation. We have had
occasion to stress that trial is to be preferred to ferret out the
CONCURRING OPINION
truth (Abugotal v. Tiro, 66 SCRA 196, 201 [1975]). The validity
FRANCISCO, J.: and merits of a party’s defense or accusation as well as the
admissibility or inadmissibility of testimonies and evidence
The thrust of petitioners’ arguments involve the validity and are better ventilated during the trial stage than in the
exercise of the prosecutory powers of the State. Maintaining preliminary investigation level. The ineluctable media
their innocence, petitioners assert that the filing of an attention notwithstanding, truth as to their innocence or guilt
information and the issuance of warrants of arrest against is still best determined at the trial.
them were without probable cause. Petitioners, in my With respect to petitioners’ contention that public
considered view, failed to make a case to warrant the Court’s respondent judge failed to personally examine and determine
interference. the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant,
Preliminary investigation, unlike trial, is summary in suffice it to say that the judge does not have to personally
nature, the purpose of which is merely to determine whether examine the complainant and his witnesses in order to issue a
a crime has been committed and whether there is probable warrant of arrest as he can rely on the certification of the
cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof (Paderanga prosecutor/s (Circular No. 12-Guidelines on Issuance of
v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86, 92 [1991]). It is not intended to find Warrants of Arrests [June 30, 1987]; Soliven v. Makasiar, 167
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts should give deference, SCRA 393, 398 [1988]). There is ample evidence and sufficient
in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, as in this basis on record that support the trial court’s issuance of the
case, to the finding and determination of probable cause by warrant as petitioners themselves do not contend that the
prosecutors in preliminary investigations. If not, the functions prosecutors’ certification was unaccompanied by the records of
the preliminary investigation to take their case outside the second, the preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not
ambit of the rule. Moreover, contrary to what the petitioners bind the judge; and third, judges and prosecutors alike should
imply, the Court may not determine how cursory or exhaustive distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines
the judge’s examination of the certification, report and probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the
findings of the preliminary investigation and its annexes preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether
should be as this depends not only upon the sound exercise of the offender should be held liable for trial of release. (Ibid.).
the judge’s discretion in personally determining the existence The court may require that the record of the preliminary
of probable cause, but also from the circumstances of each case investigation be submitted to it to satisfy itself that there is a
(Lim, Sr. v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292, 306 [1991]). Besides, probable cause which will warrant the issuance of a warrant
respondent judge, being a public officer, enjoys the of arrest. (Ibid.)
presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties
(Rule 131, Sec. 3 [m], Rules of Court). The issuance of the ——o0o——
warrants of arrest against
695
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 695
Webb vs. De Leon
petitioners thus can not be said to be whimsical or arbitrary.
Lastly, the law in this jurisdiction is lopsided in favor of the
accused. The 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Court
enumerate an array of rights upon which an accused can seek
protection and solace. To mention a few: he has the right to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, the right
against self-incrimination, the right to remain silent, to
confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, to have
a speedy, impartial and public trial, to be heard by himself and
counsel, to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. These rights are afforded to the
accused and not to the complainant. Therefore, petitioners
need not be distressed if they henceforth go to trial.
I vote to dismiss the petitions.
Petitions dismissed.
Notes.—In satisfying the existence of a probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required
to personally examine the complainant and witness. (Lim, Sr.
vs. Felix, 194 SCRA 292 [1991]).
The phrase “personal determination by the judge” means
the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge;