Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Napoles Vs de Lima 2016
Napoles Vs de Lima 2016
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
That from the period of 19 December 2012 up to 22 March 2013, in the City
of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, who are private individuals, conspiring, confederating
and mutually aiding one another, without authority of law and by means of
intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deprive
Benhur Luy y Kilapkilap of his liberty, prohibiting him from leaving Bahay San
Jose, located at No. 52 Lapulapu Street, Magallanes Village, Makati City, nor
contacting any of his relatives without their prior permission, thereby
depriving him of his liberty during the aforesaid period of time, which lasted
for more than three (3) days, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.28
The case was raffled to Branch 150 presided by Judge Elmo M. Alameda
(Judge Alameda).29 Recommending no bail for Napoles and Lim, Judge
Alameda issued a warrant for their arrest.30 chanrobleslaw
Napoles filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari31 alleging
grave abuse of discretion on the part of Secretary De Lima, Prosecutor
General Arellano, Prosecutor Villanueva, Director Rojas, and of Judge
Alameda.32 She contended that there was no probable cause to charge her
with serious illegal detention, and that Judge Alameda erred in issuing the
arrest warrant despite the pendency of her Motion for Judicial Determination
of Probable Cause.33 chanrobleslaw
In deciding Napoles' Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals said that "full
discretionary authority in the determination of probable cause during a
preliminary investigation has been delegated to the executive branch,
particularly at the first instance to the public prosecutor, and ultimately to the
[Department of Justice]."34 Hence, absent any grave abuse of discretion,
courts will not disturb the public prosecutor's finding of probable cause.35 chanrobleslaw
The Court of Appeals observed that the Review Resolution "show[ed] the
reasons for the course of action [the prosecution] had taken which were
thoroughly and sufficiently discussed therein."36 Moreover, the prosecution
"painstakingly went over the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties and
thereafter resolved the issues by applying the precepts of the law on
evidence."37chanrobleslaw
With respect to the issuance of the arrest warrant, the Court of Appeals noted
Napoles' "attempt to quash the warrant of arrest issued against her by way
of... petition for certiorari."38 Moreover, since Napoles failed to attach copies
of the arrest warrant in her Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals
refused to squarely rule on the issue of whether there was grave abuse of
discretion in its issuance.39 chanrobleslaw
Napoles moved for reconsideration,41 but the Court of Appeals denied the
Motion in its July 8,2014 Resolution.42 chanrobleslaw
On September 11, 2014, Napoles filed before this Court her Petition for
Review on Certiorari with Application for a Temporary Restraining
Napoles adds that under Rule 112, Section 649 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Judge Alameda had 10 days from the filing of the
information to personally evaluate the prosecutor's Resolution and its
supporting evidence.' Yet, Judge Alameda issued the arrest warrant the very
day the records of the case were transmitted to Branch 150.50 This allegedly
showed the hastiness with which Judge Alameda issued the warrant for her
arrest. Judge Alameda allegedly "succumbed to the extraneous pressure and
influence from the mass and social media to appease the growing public
clamor of crucifying [Napoles] for her alleged involvement in the [pork barrel]
scam."51chanrobleslaw
Respondents echo the Court of Appeals' pronouncement and argue that the
determination of probable cause for filing an information in court is an
executive function.54 Absent grave abuse of discretion, as in this case, courts
of justice may not interfere with that finding.55 chanrobleslaw
Neither was Judge Alameda's issuance of the arrest warrant attended with
grave abuse of discretion, according to respondents. For them, "what is
essential is ... that [Judge Alameda] was able to review the [prosecutor's
finding] and, on the basis thereof, affirm[ed] the prosecutor's determination
of probable cause."56 chanrobleslaw
The issue for our resolution is whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding
no grave abuse of discretion: first, in filing an information for serious illegal
detention against Napoles; and, second, in the issuance of a warrant for her
arrest.
This Petition must be denied for being moot and academic. In any case, the
Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. There
was no grave abuse of discretion either in the filing of information in court or
in the issuance of the arrest warrant against Napoles.
I
Even before the filing of this Petition questioning the Review Resolution, an
Information for serious illegal detention has been filed against Napoles.
Therefore, with the filing of the Information before the trial court, this Petition
has become moot and academic.57 The trial court has then acquired exclusive
jurisdiction over the case, and the determination of the accused's guilt or
innocence rests within the sole and sound discretion of the trial court. As
explained in Crespo v. Mogul:58 chanrobleslaw
It is true that the Constitution allows the exercise of the power of judicial
review in cases where grave abuse of discretion exists.60 In this case,
however, a petition for certiorari before this Court was not the "plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law"61 because, as discussed,
the trial court already acquired jurisdiction over the case. The proper remedy
for Napoles was to proceed to trial and allow the exhaustive presentation of
evidence by the parties.
During the pendency of this Petition, the main case from which the Petition
for Certiorari stemmed was decided by the trial court. In its April 14, 2015
Decision,62 Branch 150 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City found
Napoles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serious illegal detention, punished
under Article 26763 of the Revised Penal Code. She was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay Benhur Luy
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.64 chanrobleslaw
All the more should this Petition be dismissed. Napoles has been found guilty
of serious illegal detention with proof beyond reasonable doubt, a quantum of
evidence higher than probable cause.65 Resolving whether there was probable
cause in the filing of information before the trial court and in the issuance of
an arrest warrant would be "of no practical use and value."66 chanrobleslaw
In any case, despite the mootness of this Petition, we proceed with resolving
the issues presented by the parties for the guidance of the bench and the
bar.67
chanrobleslaw
II
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of
the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he
finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of
this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may
order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from
notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days
from the filing of the complaint or information. (Emphasis supplied)
II. A.
(2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter
of his liberty;
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are
present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts more than 3 days; or (b) it is
committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries
are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public
officer.
....
Relative to the instant case, there is no question regarding the first element,
as both respondents are private individuals. There is no allegation to the
contrary that respondents [Reynald] Lim and Janet Lim Napoles are private
indiv[i]duals.
The issue in this case actually revolves around the second element of the
crime, which is the question of whether complainant Benhur Luy was actually
deprived of his liberty....
....
[I]t appears that there is sufficient evidence to establish that complainant
Benhur Luy was actually deprived of his liberty.
Moreover, Benhur Luy's detention at Bahay San Jose, which has close ties
with respondent Janet Lim Napoles, is indicative that she had personal
knowledge of what was happening. As earlier ruled, it would be highly illogical
for Benhur Luy to have his retreat in a house that has very close ties to Janet
Napoles^ In our mind, complainant Benhur Luy's confinement at Bahay San
Jose was caused by respondent Janet Lim Napoles.
....
The most damning link between the crime and respondent Janet Lim Napoles
is the motive behind complainant Benhur Luy's deprivation of liberty.
Consistent with our earlier finding that the deprivation was undertaken in
order to prevent complainant Benhur Luy from divulging information on JLN
group of companies' involvement in the Fertilizer Fund, Malampaya and PDAF
scams, it is clear that respondent Janet Lim Napoles authored and/or
orchestrated this unlawful three (3) month detention.75 (Citations omitted)
It is true that the Review Resolution reversed the initial rinding of lack of
probable cause against Napoles and Lim. However, this in itself does not show
grave abuse of discretion.
In initially dismissing the criminal complaint filed by Benhur Luy's family, the
prosecutor disregarded the purported motive behind Benhur Luy's detention.
According to the initial Resolution, whether Napoles and Lim detained Benhur
Luy to prevent him from exposing the anomalous transactions of the JLN
Group of Companies involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund
would spawn an entirely different proceeding; hence, the issue is irrelevant in
the proceedings involving the serious illegal detention charge.77
chanrobleslaw
II. B.
Neither was there grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the arrest
warrant against Napoles. That Judge Alameda issued the arrest warrant within
the day he received the records of the case from the prosecutor does not
mean that the warrant was hastily issued. "Speed in the conduct of
proceedings by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer cannot per se be instantly
attributed to an injudicious performance of functions. For one's prompt
dispatch may be another's undue haste."80 chanrobleslaw
Judge Alameda was under no obligation to review the entire case record as
Napoles insists. All that is required is that a judge personally evaluates the
evidence and decides, independent of the finding of the prosecutor, that
probable cause exists so as to justify the issuance of an arrest warrant. As
explained in Ho v. People:81 chanrobleslaw
[I]t is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the
preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. We do
not intend to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the
complete records of every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering
the arrest of an accused. What is required, rather, is that the judge must
have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits,
counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of
stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent judgment or,
at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the
existence of probable cause.82 (Emphasis supplied)
In his August 14, 2013 Order,83 Judge Alameda declared that he personally
evaluated the records of the case, including the Review Resolution and the
Sworn Statements of the witnesses; and that based on the records, he found
probable cause to issue an arrest warrant against Napoles:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Moreover, Judge Alameda did not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the
arrest warrant despite the pendency of the Motions for Judicial Determination
of Probable Cause filed by Napoles and Lim. Hearing these Motions would be a
mere superfluity, for with or without such motion[s], the judge is duty-bound
to personally evaluate the resolution of the public prosecutor and the
supporting evidence. In fact, the task of the presiding judge when the
Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the
existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the
accused.85 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2
Id. at 58-80. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia
and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Vicente
S. E. Veloso of the Special Third Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3
Id. at 81-82.
4
Id. at 336-346.
5
Id. at 342-345.
6
Id.
7
Id. at 370, Recommendation dated March 23, 2013.
8
Id. at 371.
9
Id.
10
Id. at 373-375, Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
11
Id. at 369-372.
12
Id. at 105-132.
13
Id. at 290-313.
14
Id. at 107 and 293.
15
Id.
16
Id. at 110-111.
17
Id. at 160-198.
18
Id. at 191.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id. at 197.
22
Id. at 87-104.
23
Id. at 102.
24
Id. at 88.
25
cralawred Id. at 376-378.
26
Id. at 102.
27
Id. at 757-758.
28
Id. at 757.
29
Id. at 86, Order of Arrest dated August 14, 2013
30
Id.
31
Id. at 759-819.
32
Id. at 801.
33
Id. at 803.
34
Id. at 74.
35
Id.
36
Id. at 75.
37
Id.
38
Id. at 79.
39
Id.
40
Id. at 58-80.
41
Id. at 607-626.
42
Id. at 81-82.
43
Id. at 11-57.
44
Id. at 639-687.
45
Id. at 880-889.
46
Id. at 30.
47
Id. at 29.
48
Id.
49
RULES OF COURT, Rule 112, sec. 6(a) provides:
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information,
the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he
shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has
already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who
conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information
was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence
of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by
the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or
information.
50
Id. at 32.
51
Id. at 31.
52
Id. at 647-653.
53
Id. at 653-656.
54
Id. at 669-671.
55
Id. at 670.
56
Id. at 676.
57
See Secretary De Lima v. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016 <
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/jan
uary2016/209330.pdf > [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
58
235 Phil. 465 (1987) [Per J. Gancayco, En Banc].
59
Id. at 474-476.
60
CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
61
RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
62
Rollo, pp. 899-924.
63
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 267 provides:
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his
liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
64
Rollo, p. 924, Regional Trial Court Decision.
65
Leviste v. Hon. Alameda, 640 Phil. 620, 630 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales,
Third Division].
66
Id. at 633.
67
Id.
68
RULES OF COURT, Rule 112, sec. 1 provides:
People v. Castillo and Mejia, 607 Phil. 754, 764 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing,
69
Second Division].
70
Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 530, 550 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, Second Division].
People v. Castillo and Mejia, 607 Phil. 754, 765 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing,
71
Second Division].
72
CONST., art. III, sec. 2 provides:
73
As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (2005).
74
Crespo v. Mogul, 235 Phil. 465, 476 (1987) [Per J. Gancayco, En Banc].
75
Rollo, pp. 90-100.
Ferrer v. Carganillo, 634 Phil. 557, 590 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
76
Division].
77
Rollo, p. 191, Resolution of the prosecutor.
78
See People v. Madrigal-Gonzales, 117 Phil. 956, 963 (1963) [Per J. Paredes,
En Banc].
79
Rollo, p. 94.
81
345 Phil. 597 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
82
Id. at 612.
83
Id. at 612.
84
Rollo, pp. 83-85.
84
Id. at 84.
Leviste v. Alameda, 640 Phil. 620, 648-649 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales,
85
Third Division].
86
RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 3 provides: