ALLADO - v - DIOKNO

Facts:

1.     Petitioners, alumni of UP Law, partners in a law firm of Salonga, Hernandez, and Allado. In practice of their profession and on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard Umbal, they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder of Eugene Alexander Van Twest, a German national by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by the respondent Judge of RTC Makati.

2.     Petitioners in instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO principally contend that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in “whimsically holding that there is probable cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his findings.” They maintain that records of the preliminary investigation solely relied upon by the judge failed to establish probable cause to justify issuance of warrant of arrest. They too assailed prosecutors clear sign of bias and impartiality

Issue: W/N respondent judge erred in issuing a warrant of arrest based on extra judicial confession

Held: Petition granted.

Ratio:

Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. For, otherwise, he would have found out that the evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners.

PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of Van Twest. The extrajudicial statement of Umbal suffers from material inconsistencies. (for example, remains have not been recovered, he said that the body of Van Twest was burned into ashes. This is improbable because, a human body cannot be pulverised into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field.)

The court cannot discount petitioners’ theory that the supposed death of Van Twest who is reportedly an international fugitive from justice, a fact substantiated by the petitioners and not refuted by PACC is a likely story to stop the international manhunt for his arrest. The undue haste in the filing of the information and the inordinate interest of the government cannot be ignored.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.