G.R. No. L-14595. May 31, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE GREGORIO MONTEJO, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ZAMBOANGA CITY AND BASILAN CITY, MAYOR LEROY S. BROWN, DETECTIVE JOAQU…
CONCEPCION, J.:
preliminary injunction, against Hon. Gregorio Montejo, as Judge of the
Court of First Instance of the cities of Zamboanga and Basilan, and the
defendants in Criminal Case No. 672 of said court.
In the
petition herein, which was filed by the prosecution in said criminal
case, it is prayed that, pending the final determination thereof, a
writ of preliminary injunction issue, enjoining respondent Judge from
proceeding with the trial of said case; that, after due hearing, the
rulings of respondent Judge, rejecting some evidence for the
prosecution therein and not permitting the same to propound certain
questions, be set aside; that said respondent Judge be ordered to admit
the aforementioned evidence and permit said questions; and that Senator
Roseller Lim be declared, contrary to another ruling made by respondent
Judge, disqualified by the Constitution from appearing as counsel for
the accused in said criminal case. Soon, after the filing of the
petition, we issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for,
without bond.
In their respective answers, respondents
alleged, in substance, that the ruling complained of are in conformity
with law.
Respondents Leroy S. Brown, Mayor of Basilan City, Detective Joaquin R. Pollisco, Patrolman Graciano Lacerna (alias
Dodong) and Mohamad Hasbi, Special Policemen Dionisio Dinglasa, Moro
Yakan, Hadjaratil, Moro Alo, and several John Does, are charged, in
said Criminal Case No. 672, with murder. It is alleged in the
information therein that, during May and June, 1958, in the sitio of
Tipo-Tipo, district of Lamitan, City of Basilan, Mayor Brown “organized
groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes”, consisting of regular
and special policemen, whom he “armed with pistols and high power
guns”, and then “established a camp”, called sub-police
headquarters—hereinafter referred to as sub-station—at Tipo-Tipo,
Lamitan, which was placed under his command, orders, direct supervision
and control, and in which his codefendants were stationed; that
criminal complaints were entertained in said sub-station, in which
defendant Pollisco acted as investigating officer and exercised
authority to order the apprehension of persons and their detention in
the camp, for days or weeks, without due process of law and without
bringing them to the proper court; that, on or about June 4, and 5,
1958; one Yakan Awalin Tebag was arrested by order of Mayor Brown,
without any warrant or complaint filed in court, and then brought to,
and detained in, the aforementioned sub-station; that while on the way
thereto, said Awalin Tebag was maltreated, pursuant to instructions of
Mayor Brown, concurred in by Pollisco, to the effect that Tebag be
mauled until such time as he shall surrender his gun; that, once in the
sub-station, Tebag, whose hands were securely tied, was subjected, by
defendants Lacerna, Hasbi, Pollisco, Dinglasa, and other special
policemen, to further and more severe torture, in consequence of which
Tebag died; that, in order to simulate that Tebag had been killed by
peace officers in the course of an encounter between the latter and a
band of armed bandits of which he formed part, the body of Tebag was
brought, early the next morning, to a nearby isolated field, where
defendant Hasbi fired twice at said dead body from behind, and then an
old Japanese rifle, supplied by Mayor Brown, was placed beside said
body; and that, in furtherance of the aforementioned simulation, a
report of said imaginary encounter, mentioning Tebag as the only member
of, a band of armed bandits whose identity was known, was submitted and
respondent Hasbi caused one of his companions to shoot him on the left
arm.
During the trial of said criminal case, respondent Judge rejected the following evidence for the prosecution therein:
- Exhibit A—A
report of Capt. F. G. Sarrosa, Commanding Officer of the PC Detachment
in Basilan City, who investigated the case, showing that on June 5,
1958, he and Lt. Clemente Antonio, PAF, found nine (9) detainees in the
Tipo-Tipo sub-station. This was part of the chain of evidence of the
prosecution to prove that persons used to be detained in the
aforementioned sub-station by the main respondents herein, without
either a warrant of arrest or a complaint filed in court. - Exhibit C—Letter
of Atty. Doroteo de Guzman to the officer in charge of the sub-station,
dated June 4, 1958, inquiring as to the whereabouts of Awalin Tebag,
who, according to the letter, was arrested in his house, by policemen,
on June 4, 1958. Capt. Sarrosa took possession of this letter in the
course of his aforementioned investigation. - Exhibits G, G-1, G-2 and G-3—These
are the transcript of the testimony of Tebag’s mother, before the City
Fiscal of Basilan City, when she asked an autopsy of the body of her
son. - Exhibits J to V—Consisting
of the following, namely: a sketch of the sub-station; pictures of
several huts therein, indicating their relative positions and
distances; a picture depicting how the body of Tebag was taken from a
camarin in the sub-station; a picture showing how Patrolman Hasbi was
shot by a companion, at his request; and a picture, Exhibit T,
demonstrating how Mayor Brown allegedly gave the Japanese rifle,
Exhibit Y, to Hasbi, to be planted beside Tebag’s body.Although referred to by Yakan Carnain, Arit, Lianson, Kona Amenola, and
Asidin, in the course of their testimony as witnesses for the
prosecution, these exhibits were not admitted in evidence, which were
presented to show how they were able to observe the movements in the
sub-station, the same being quite small. - Exhibits X (a “barong”) and X-1 (a scabbard)—Amenola
said that these effects were given to him by Mayor Brown in the
latter’s office, and that he then saw therein the Japanese rifle,
Exhibit Y, which was later placed beside the dead body of Awalin Tebag. - Exhibits DD, DD-1, FF, JJ, KK and LL—These
show that on April 28, 1958, Yakan Kallapattoh and Fernandez
(Pilnandiz) executed affidavits admitting participation in a given
robbery; that an information therefor (Exh. KK) was filed against them
on May 2, 1958, with the municipal court of Basilan City (Criminal Case
No. 1774); and that, in compliance with warrants for their arrest then
issued, they were apprehended and detained in the sub-station, thus
corroborating the testimony of prosecution witness Yakans Amenola,
Carnain Asidin and Arip to the effect that Kallapattoh and Fernandez
(Pilnandiz) were, together with them, in the aforementioned
sub-station, when Tebag was maltreated and died therein, on June 4,
1958, as well as confirming Pollisco’s statement, Exhibit TT-18, before
the City Fiscal of Basilan city, on June 21, 1958, admitting that
Fernandez was in the sub-station on June 5, 1958, on account of the
warrant of arrest adverted to. Through the exhibits in question the
prosecution sought, also, to bolster up its theory that Kallapattoh and
Fernandez disappeared from the sub-station after Tebag’s death, because
the main respondents herein illegally released them to prevent them
from revealing the circumstances surrounding said event. - Exhibits II, II-1, and MM—These
are sketches of a human body and pictures purporting to show the points
of entrance, as well as of exit, of two (2) bullet wounds found on the
body of Tebag. Respondent Judge rejected these exhibits and did not
allow Dr. Rosalino Reyes, Chief of the Medico-Legal Section of the
National Bureau of Investigation, to answer questions asked by the
prosecution, to establish that the trajectories of said bullet wounds
were parallel to each other, which, the prosecution claims, would have
been impossible had Tebag been alive when he sustained said wounds. -
Respondent Judge sustained, also, the objections to certain questions
propounded to said Dr. Reyes, to show that the injuries sustained by
Tebag in the large intestines must have been inflicted when Tebag was
dead already, and did not allow Dr. Reyes to draw lines on Exhibits II
and MM, indicating the connection between the points of entrance and
those of exit of said wounds. - Exhibits Z, Z-1, Z-2—These
are records of the office of the City Fiscal of Basilan City showing
that the Japanese rifle, Exhibit Y, two rounds of ammunitions and one
empty shell were received by said Office from the Police Department of
Basilan City on June 17, 1958.
These exhibits were
presented to show that said rifle tallies with the description thereof
given by prosecution witness Kona Amenola, in his affidavit, dated June
14, 1958, when said weapon was still in the possession of respondent
Pollisco, and, hence, to establish Amenola’s veracity.
Likewise, the following rebuttal evidence for the prosecution were rejected by respondent Judge, viz:
- Exhibits OO to OO-8—These
are daily records of events of the police department, Lamitan District,
Basilan City, including the Tipo-Tipo region. They do not mention the
killing therein, by the police patrol, of any outlaw on June 5, 1958,
thereby contradicting the reports (Exhs. 12 and 12-A) of respondent
Pollisco and Hasbi about it. Respondent Judge did not allow the record
clerk of the City Fiscal’s office to identify said exhibits, upon the
ground that it was too late to present him although when the exhibits
were marked by the prosecution it reserved the right to identify them
as part of official records. - Exhibits PP, QQ to QQ-3—Respondent
Pollisco had testified that on June 4, 1958, Hadji Aisa inquired about
one Awalin; that he told Aisa that Awalin was taken by Mayor Brown to
the seat of the city government; and that he (Pollisco) suggested that
Datu Unding be advised not to worry, because there was no evidence
against Awalin. To impeach the veracity of Pollisco, the prosecution
presented the exhibits under consideration, for the same show that one
Dong Awalin (who is different from Awalin Tebag) was apprehended on May
27, 1958, and released on bail on June 23, 1958; that Pollisco could
not have truthfully informed Aisa on June 4, 1958, what Dong Awalin had
been taken by Mayor Brown to the seat of the city government and that
there was no evidence against him; for he was then a detention
prisoner; and that Pollisco could not have had in mind, therefore, said
Dong Awalin as the Awalin about whom Aisa had inquired. Indeed,
Exhibits TT-13 to TT-16 show that, testifying before the City Fiscal,
respondent Pollisco said that he twice ordered Patrolman Lacerna on
June 4, 1958, to bring Awalin Tebag to him (Pollisco) for investigation. - Exhibits SS to SS-7—These
are the testimonies before the City Fiscal, of defense witness Mohammad
Sali who, on cross examination by the prosecution, denied having given
it. Thus the predicate therefor was established by the prosecution
which sought thereby to impeach Sali’s veracity. - Exhibits TT, TT-1 to TT-25—These
are the testimonies, before the City Fiscal of the main respondents
herein, who gave a different story before respondent Judge. The
prosecution thus sought to impeach their veracity as witnesses in their
own behalf, after laying down the predicate in the course of their
cross examination. - Exhibits UU, UU-1 to UU-3—These
are sworn statements made by defendant Hasbi before the City Fiscal.
They were presented in rebuttal, after laying dawn the predicate, to
impeach his testimony in court. - Exhibits RR, RR-1, XX and XX-1—With
these exhibits the prosecution tried to rebut Pollisco’s testimony to
the effect that prosecution witness Lianson Arip had a grudge against
him, he (Pollisco) having charged him with theft in the City Fiscal’s
Office. It appears from said exhibits that Arip’s affidavit,
implicating Pollisco, was dated June 8, 1958, whereas Pollisco’s
affidavit, charging Arip with theft, was dated June 20, 1958, so that
said statement of Arip could not have been influenced by Pollisco’s subsequent act.
In contrast with the severe and rigorous policy used by respondent
Judge in dealing with the aforementioned evidence for the prosecution,
petitioner herein cites the liberality with which the lower court
admitted, as evidence for the defense, records of supposed achievements
of the Tipo-Tipo sub-station (Exhibits 9 to 9-G, 10 to 10-1, 17 to
17-C, 19 to 19-A, 20 to 20-1, 21 and 22), a congratulatory
communication (Exh. 24), and a letter of commendation to a peace
officer assigned thereto (Exh. 7), including an article in the
Philippine Free Press (Exhs. 23 and 23 A).
Upon a review of the record, we are fully satisfied
that the lower court had, not only erred, but, also, committed a grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions complained of, in
rejecting the aforementioned direct and rebuttal evidence for the
prosecution, and in not permitting the same to propound the questions
already adverted to. It is obvious to us that said direct and rebuttal
evidence, as well as the aforementioned questions, are relevant to the
issues involved in Criminal Case No. 672. Although it is not possible
to determine with precision, at this stage of the proceedings, how far
said exhibits may affect the outcome of that case, it is elemental that
all parties therein are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to
establish their respective pretense. In this connection it should be
noted that, in the light of the allegations of the amended information
in said case and of the records before us, the issue of the guilt or
innocence of the accused therein is bound to hinge heavily upon the
veracity of the opposing witnesses and the weight attached to their
respective testimony. Hence, the parties should be allowed a certain
latitude in the presentation of their evidence lest they may be so
hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be defeated or appear
to be defeated. The danger of leading to such result must be avoided,
particularly in cases of the nature, importance and significance of the
one under consideration.
With respect to the question
whether or not Senator Roseller Lim may appear as counsel for the main
respondents herein, as defendants in said criminal case, the
Constitution provides that no Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall “appear as counsel * * * in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an
offense committed in relation of his office * * * (Art. VI, Sec. 17,
Const, of the Phil.). The issue, therefore, is whether the defendants
in Criminal case No. 672 are “accused of an offense committed in
relation” to their office.
A mere perusal of the amended
information therein readily elicits an affirmative answer. It is
alleged in said amended information that “Leroy S. Brown, City Mayor of Basilan City, as such,
has organized groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes
consisting of regular policemen and * * * special policemen, appointed
and provided by him with pistols and high power guns* and then
“established a camp * * * at Tipo-Tipo,” which is under his “command, *
* * supervision and control,” where his codefendants were stationed,
entertained criminal complaints and conducted the corresponding
investigations, as well as assumed the authority to arrest and detain
persons without due process of law and without bringing them to the
proper court, and that, in line with this set-up established by said
Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon his orders, his
codefendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Tebag, who died in
consequence thereof.
It is apparent from these allegations
that, although public office is not an element of the crime of murder
in abstract, as committed by the main respondents herein, according to
the amended information, the offense therein charged is intimately
connected with their respective offices and was perpetrated while they
were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their
official functions. Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the
crime and they would not have committed it had they not held their
aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown,
obeyed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor
of Basilan City.
The case of Montillo vs. Hilario
and Crisologo, 90 Phil., 49, relied upon by respondent Judge, in
overruling the objection of the prosecution to the appearance of
Senator Roseller Lim, is not in point, for, as stated in the decision
therein:
“From the allegations of the information it does not appear that the official positions of the accused were connected with the offense charged. In fact, the attorneys for the prosecution stated that the
motives for the crimes were personal with political character. It does
not even appear, nor is there assertion, that the crimes were committed
by the. defendants in line of duty or in the performance of their
official functions.” (Italics supplied.) Such is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar.
Wherefore, the rulings complained of are set aside and reversed and
respondent Judge is hereby enjoined to admit the aforementioned direct
and rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, as well as to permit the
formulation, of the questions already referred to, with costs against
the respondents herein. It is so ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., took no part.