VOL.

108, MAY 31, 1960 613

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

[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 JOAQUIN R.
POLLISCO, PATROLMAN GRACIANO LACERNA alias
DODONG, PATROLMAN MOHAMAD HASBI, SPECIAL
POLICEMAN DlONISIO DINGLASA, SPECIAL
POLICEMAN HADJARATIL, SPECIAL POLICEMAN
ALO, and SEVERAL JOHN DOES, respondents.

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; LATITUDE OF PARTIES IN

THEIR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR.
·It is elemental that all parties in a criminal action are
entitled to a reasonable

614

614 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

opportunity to establish their respective theories. In the

case at bar, the issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused
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 landing to
such result must be avoided.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROHIBITION AGAINST

SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM APPEARING AS COUNSEL
IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL CASES; WHEN PROHIBITION
 APPLIES EVEN IF THE CRIME CHARGED IS MURDER.
·Although public office is not an element of the crime of
murder in abstract, where the offense charged in the
information is intimately connected with the respective
offices of the accused, and was allegedly perpetrated while
they were in the performance, though improper or irregular,
of their official functions, the constitutional provision 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 to his. office * * * (Article VI,
Section 17, Constitution of the Philippines), is applicable
thereto.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari with

mandamus and preliminary injunction.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Acting City Atty. Perfecto B. Querubin for petitioner.
Hon. Gregorio Montejo in his own behalf.
C. A. S. Sipin, Jr. for the other respondents.
CONCEPCIÓN, J.:
This is a special civil action for certiorari, with
mandamus and 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

615

VOL. 108, MAY 31, 1960 615

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

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

616

616 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

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:

1. 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 substation by the
main respondents herein, without either a warrant
of arrest or a complaint filed in court.
2. 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,

617

VOL. 108, MAY 31, 1960 617

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

who, according to the letter, was arrested in his

house, by policeman, on June 4, 1958. Capt Sarrosa
took possession of this letter in the course of his
aforementioned investigation.
3. 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.
4. 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 substation, the same
being quite small.
5. 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.
6. 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
substation, thus corroborating the testimony of
prosecution

618

618 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.

619

VOL. 108, MAY 31, 1960 619

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

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:

1. Exhibits OO to 00-8·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.
2. 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, tes

620

620 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

tifying 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 down the predicate, to impeach his testimony
in court.
6. 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

621

VOL. 108, MAY 31, 1960 621

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

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

622

622 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hon. Montejo, etc., et al.

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:

623

VOL. 108, MAY 31, 1960 623

Pingol and Reyes vs. Tigno, et al.

"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.

Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo,

Labrador, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Rulings set aside and reversed.

 ________________

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.