ALLADO v.

DIOKNO
May 5, 1994 | Bellosillo, J. | Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition | Procedure for issuance of a warrant of arrest

PETITIONER: Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza
RESPONDENT: Hon. Roberto C. Diokno and Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC)
SUMMARY: Petitioners Atty. Allado and Mendoza were accused of kidnapping
with murder. A warrant of arrest and an information was filed against them based
on the affidavit of security guard Umbal. Petition for certiorari and prohibition
with TRO was filed by the petioners claiming that there was no probable cause.
SC ruled there was no probable cause and that the respondent judge and the
prosecutors abused their discretion.

DOCTRINE: It is mandatory that there be probable cause before an
information is filed and a warrant of arrest issued. Before issuing a warrant of
arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that there is a sufficient proof that a crime
has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.

FACTS:
1. Petitioners Allado and Mendoza, alumni of
the College of Law, UP were accused of the
heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by
the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission
(PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by
the respondent judge.

2. This was based on an alleged extrajudicial
confession dated Sept. 16, 1993 of security
guard Escolastico Umbal, implicating them
as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping
and slaying of Eugene Alexander Van
Twest, a German national. He claimed that
he and his companions (an ex policeman, an
AFPCIG agent and an SPO2) were met by
petitioner lawyers at Silahis Hotel and in
exchange for 2.5M, they apprehended Van
Twest who allegedly had an international
warrant of arrest against him. They blocked
his blue Nissan Pathfinder and forced him
into their car.

3. SPO2 Bato faked the interrogation of Van,
pretending it was official and then made him
sign certain documents. The ff. day, he was
shot and stabbed repeatedly; his private part
cut off and his cadaver was later burned into
fine ashes using gasoline and rubber tires.

4. After Umbals extrajudicial confession was
executed, PACC, armed with a search
warrant, raided the dwellings of AFPCIG
Santiago where a blue Nissan Pathfinder and
assorted firearms and ammunition were
recovered. A criminal proceeding was filed
against Umbals companions and petitioners
Atty. Allado and Mendoza for illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition,
carnapping, kidnapping for ransom with
murder and usurpation of authority.

5. The State prosecutor charged the petitioner
attorneys for planning and conspiring with
other suspects in abducting and killing Van
Twest in order to eliminate him after forcing
him to sign several documents transferring
ownership of several properties amounting
to several million pesos and caused the
withdrawal of 5M deposit from the victims
bank deposit. A subpoena was issued to
them directing them to submit their counter-
affidavits. Attached to the subpoena were
copies of the affidavits executed by Umbal
and members of the team who raided the 2
dwellings of Santiago.

6. The petitioner attorneys asked for the
complete records of the PACCs
investigation and to present other
documentary evidence to substantiate their
claim. The requested documents werent
provided.

7. An information was filed before the RTC
of Makati presided by respondent Judge
Diokno. The judge issued a warrant of
arrest against petitioners. The petitioners
then filed for certiorari and prohibition
with prayer of TRO claiming that there
was no probable cause.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON there is probable cause in the issuance
of the warrant of arrest and the filing of the
information NO


RULING: Petition for certiorari and prohibition is
granterd. TRO in favor of the petitioners is made
permanent.

RATIO:

The evidence submitted was insufficient for finding
probable cause against petitioners. The PACC relied
heavily on the sworn statement of security guard
Umbal. Umbal claimed that Van Twest was
completely burned into ashed with the use of gasoline
and rubber from 10pm-6am which is highly
improbable and ridiculous. A human body cannot be
pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the
use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field.
There was also no proof that earnest efforts were
exerted to recover traces of his remains from the
scene of the alleged cremation. Even Van Twests
counsel doubter the latters death.

Material inconsistencies in the sworn statement:

1. Umbal stated that he was with his cohorts
when they met the petitioners in Silahis
Hotel but during the preliminary
investigation, he stated that he wasnt
part of the actual meeting as he only
waited outside in the car.
2. Umbal said that petitioners arrived with
Bato and conducted mock interrogation of
Van Twest who then signed various
documents. During the clarificatory
questioning, he changed his story and said
that he was asked to go out and did not
see if Van indeed signed curtained
documents.

The application of the PACC operatives for a search
warrant to be served in the 2 dwellings of Santiago
was filed and granted on Sept. 15, 1993, a day before
Umbal executed his sworn statement. Umbal was
only intterogated on Sept. 16, 1993, a day after the
search warrant was issued.

Also, the PACC operatives claimed that according to
Umbal, it was Santiago and not the petitioners who
masterminded the whole affair. The credibility of
Umbal is badly batterd.

Judge Diokno 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. He merely relied on the
certification of the prosecutors that probable
cause existed.

The prosecutors also abused their discretion because
if they really believed that petitioners were probably
guilty, they should have armed themselves with facts
and circumstances in support of their belief.