0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
917 vizualizări5 pagini
1. The document describes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a prisoner who escaped from custody.
2. It discusses the defense's attempt to include the governor and assistant warden as defendants by arguing they were complicit based on a note.
3. However, after reinvestigating as ordered, the fiscal concluded there was no prima facie case against the governor or warden based on the evidence.
1. The document describes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a prisoner who escaped from custody.
2. It discusses the defense's attempt to include the governor and assistant warden as defendants by arguing they were complicit based on a note.
3. However, after reinvestigating as ordered, the fiscal concluded there was no prima facie case against the governor or warden based on the evidence.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
1. The document describes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a prisoner who escaped from custody.
2. It discusses the defense's attempt to include the governor and assistant warden as defendants by arguing they were complicit based on a note.
3. However, after reinvestigating as ordered, the fiscal concluded there was no prima facie case against the governor or warden based on the evidence.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
Republic of the Philippines That on or about the 12th day of September.
SUPREME COURT 1968, in the barrio of Taculod, municipality of
Manila Canaman, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this SECOND DIVISION Honorable Court, the said accused, being then a member of the Provincial Guard of G.R. No. L-31839 June 30, 1980 Camarines Sur and specially charged with the duty of keeping under custody and vigilance EDMUNDO S. ALBERTO, Provincial Fiscal detention prisoner Pablo Denaque, did then and BONIFACIO C. INTIA 1st Asst. and there with great carelessness and Provincial Fiscal, both of Camarines unjustifiable negligence leave the latter Sur, petitioners, unguarded while in said barrio, thereby giving vs. him the opportunity to run away and escape, HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as in fact said detention prisoner Pablo as Judge of the CFI of Camarines Sur and Denaque did run away and escape from the ELIGIO ORBITA,respondents. custody of the said accused. 1
In the course of the trial thereof, or more
particularly during the cross-examination of CONCEPCION, J.: prosecution witness Jose Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden of Camarines Sur, the Petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the defense brought forht and confronted the issuance of a writ of preliminay injunction, to witness with a note, marked as exhibit, annul and set aside the order of the purportedly written by Gov. Armando Cledera, respondent Judge, dated January 26, 1970, asking Jose Esmeralda to send five men to directing the petitioners, Provincial Fiscal and work in the construction of a fence at his Assitant Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur, to house at Taculod, Canaman, Camarines Sur, amend the information filed in Criminal Case then leased by the province and used as an No. 9414 of the Court of First Instance of official guest house. Jose Esmeralda, CamarinesSur, entitled: "The People of the declared, however, that he could not Philippines, plaintiff, versus Eligio Orbita, remember who ahnded the note for him; that accused," so as to include, as defendants, he was not sure as to genuineness of the Governor Armando Cledera and Jose signature appearing therein and that he was Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden of not preszent when the note was made and Camarines Sur; as well as the order dated signed by Gov. Cledera. 2 Beleiving that the February 18, 1970, denying the motion for the escape of Pablo Denaque was made possible reconsideration of the said order. by the note of Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda and that Cledera and Esmeralda In Criminal Case No. 9414 of the Court of First are equally guilty of the offense for which tha Instance of Camarines Sur, Eligio Orbita, a accused Eligio Orbita had been charged, the Provincial guard, is prosecuted for the crime of defense cousel filed a motion in court seeking Infedelity in the Custody of Prisoner, defined the amendment of the information so as to and punished under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, committed, as follows: Page 1 of 5 include Gov. cledera and Jose Esmeralda as of ordering the Fiscal to reinvestigate this defendants therein. 3 case, on the basis of the evidence already adduce during the trial of this case, he be Acting upon said motion, as well as the ordered to amend the information on to include opposition of the prosecution officers 4 and Cledera and Esmeralda it appearing the on finding that "the court cannot grant the motion record that their inclusion is warranted. 8 or order the inclusion of Gov. Cledera and Lt. Esmeralda at this stage unless an On January 26, 1970, the respondent Court investigation is made," the respondent Judge issued the order complained of, the dispositive directed the Fiscals office, within 15 days from portion of which reads, as follows: date, to cause the further investigation of the case, taking into consideration the provisions WHEREFORE, premises considered, in the of Article 156 in relation to Articles 223 and light of the facts brought about by the 224 of the Revised Penal Code in order to prosecuting fiscal let the charges be so determine once and for all whether the amended by including in the information the Governor as jailer of the Province and his author or writer of Exhibit 2 and the person or assistant have any criminatory participation in persons who carried out the said orders the circumstances of Pablo Denaque's escape considering the provisions of Article 156 in from judicial custody. 5 relation to Articles 223 and 224 of the Penal Code. 9 In compliance with said order, the Fiscal set the reinvestigation of the case for December The Fiscal filed a motion for the 19, 1969. Summonses were issued to Gov. reconsideration of said order, 10 but the motion Cledera Jose Esmeralda, Lorenzo Padua, the was denied on February 18, 1970. 11Hence, provincial warden, and the accused Eligio the instant recourse. Orbita to be present thereat. 6 Dr. went thereat But, on the date set for the reinvestigation of From the facts of the case, We are convinced the case, only Gov. Cledera Jose Esmeralda that the respondent Judge committed an error and Lorenzo Padua appeared. The accused in ordering the fiscal to amend the information Eligio Orbita did not appear. Neither was the so as to include Armando Cledera and Jose note (Exhibit 2) produced. Since no additional Esmeralda as defendants in Criminal Case evidence was presented, the Fiscal No. 9414 of the Court of First Instance of manifested in Court on January 2, 1970 that Camarines Sur. It is the rule that a fiscal by the "after conducting a reinvestigation of the case nature of his office, is under no compulsion to and after a thorough and intelligent analysis of file a particular criminal information where he the facts and law involved, no prima facie case is not convinced that he has evidence to against Governor Cledera and Jose support the allegations thereof. 12 Although this Esmeralda exist, hence, they cannot be power and prerogative of the Fiscal, to charged. 7 determine whether or not the evidence at hand is sufficient to form a reasonable belief that a On January 19, 1970, the accused Eligio person committed an offense, is not absolute Orbita filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" and subject to judicial review, 13 it would be praying "that the Order of this Honorable Court embarrassing for the prosecuting attorney to dated December 11, 1969 be, in that instead be compelled to prosecute a case when he is Page 2 of 5 in no position to do so because in his opinion, 2. The Governor's evidence at he does not have the necessary evidence to that time is being rented by the secure a conviction, or he is not convinced of province and its maintenance and the merits of the case. The better procedure upkeep is shouldered by the would be to appeal the Fiscal's decision to the province of Camarines Sur, Ministry of Justice and/or ask for a special prosecutor. 3. That neither Governor Cledera nor Lt. Jose Esmeralda was Besides, it cannot be said that the Fiscal had charged or entrusted with the duty capriciously and whimsically refused to of conveying and the detainee prosecute Cledera and Esmeralda. from the jail to the residence of the governor. In his order directing the Fiscal's office to conduct a further reinvestigation of the case, 4. That the de worked at the the respondent Judge candidly ad. muted that Governor Is by virtue of an order without a reinvestigation of the case, he of the Governor (Exhibit 2) which cannot determine once and for all whether or was tsn by Lt. Esmeralda; and not to include Gov. Cledera and Jose Esmeralda in the information. Pursuant 5. That it was the accused Orbita who himself who handpicked the group of thereto, a reinvestigation was conducted by Prisoners to work at the Governor's on 12, the fiscals office. Summonses were issued. 1968. 14 But, no additional fact was elicited since Eligio Orbita did not appear thereat. Neither was the Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code note (Exh. 2) presented and produced. Gov. provides: Cledera could not admit nor deny the genuineness of the signature appearing in the Art. 156. Delivering prisoners note since it was not on hand. Such being the from jails. — The city Of arrests case, the prosecuting officers had reason to mayor in its maximum period refuse to amend the information filed by them to prison correccional in its after a previous pre examination and minimum Period shall be imposed investigation. upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal Moreover, there is no sufficient evidence in the establishment t any person record to show a prima facie case against confined therein or shall help the Gov. Cledera and Jose Esmeralda. The order escape of such person, by means to amend the information is based upon the of violence, intimidation, or following facts: bribery.
1. Pablo Denaque, a detention If other means are used the
prisoner for homicide, while penalty of arresto mayor shall be working at the Guest House of imposed. If the escape of the Governor Cledera on September prisoner shall take place outside 12, 1968; of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the same Page 3 of 5 penalties shall be imposed in their fugitive shall have been minimum period. sentenced by final judgment to any penalty. The offenders may be committed in two ways: (1) by removing a person confined in any jail 2. By prision correccional in its or penal establishment; and (2) by helping minimum period and temporary such a person to escape. To remove means to special disqualification, in case take away a person from the place of his the fugitive shall not have been confinement, with or without the active finally convicted but only held as a compensation of the person released To help detention prisoner for any crime in the escape of a Person confined in any jail or violation of law or municipal or penal institution means to furnished that ordinance. person with the material means such as a file, ladder, rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his In order to be guilty under the aforequoted escape. 15 The offenders under this article is provisions of the Penal Code, it is necessary usually committed by an outsider who that the public officer had consented to, or removes from jail any person therein confined connived in, the escape of the prisoner under or helps him escape. If the offender is a public his custody or charge. Connivance in the officer who has custody or charge of the escape of a prisoner on the part of the person prisoner, he is liable for infidelity in the custody in charge is an essential condition in the of prisoner defined and penalty under Article commission of the crime of faithlessness in the 223 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Gov. custody of the prisoner. If the public officer Cledera as governor, is the jailer of the charged with the duty of guarding him does province, 16 and Jose Esmeralda is the not connive with the fugitive, then he has not assistant provincial warden, they cannot be violated the law and is not guilty of the prosecuted for the escape Of Pablo Denaque crime. 17 For sure no connivance in the escape under Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code. of Pablo Denaque from the custody of the There is likewise no sufficient evidence to accused Eligio Orbita can be deduced from warrant their prosecution under Article 223 of the note of Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda the Revised Penal Code, which reads, as asking for five men to work in the guest house, follows: it appearing that the notes does not mention the names of the prisoners to be brought to ART. 223. Conniving with or the guest house; and that it was the accused consenting to evasion. — Any Eligio Orbita who picked the men to compose Public officer who shall consent to the work party. the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be Neither is there evidence to warrant the punished prosecution of Cledera and Esmeralda under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code. This 1. By prision correccional in its article punishes the public officer in whose medium and maximum periods custody or charge a prisoner has escaped by and temporary disqualification in reason of his negligence resulting in evasion is its minimum period to perpetual definite amounting to deliberate non- special disqualification, if the Page 4 of 5 performance of duty. 18 In the constant case, and does not have to be included in the case the respondent Judge said: against Eligio Orbita.
We cannot, for the present be reconciled
with the Idea that the escape. of Denaque was facilitated by the Governor's or . his assistants negligence. According to law, if Separate Opinions there is any negligence committed it must be the officer who is charged with the custody AQUINO, J., concurring: and guarding of the ... 19 I concur. Governor Armando Cledera and Jose We find no reason to set aside such findings. Esmeralda can be indicted in court by the fiscal not by virtue of a judicial order but only WHEREFORE, the orders issued on January after he has conducted the proper pre 26, and February 18, 1970 in Criminal Case investigation in accordance with Presidential No. 9414 of the Court of First Instance of Decree No. 77. The case against Cledera and Camarines Sur, entitled: "The People of the Esmeralda, if there is a prima facie case Philippines, plaintiff, versus Eligio against them, can be prosecuted separately Orbita, accused are hereby annulled and set and does not have to be included in the case aside. The respondent Judge or any other against Eligio Orbita. judge acting in his stead is directed to proceed with the trial of the case. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Abad Santos and De
Castro, * JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
AQUINO, J., concurring:
I concur. Governor Armando Cledera and Jose
Esmeralda can be indicted in court by the fiscal not by virtue of a judicial order but only after he has conducted the proper pre investigation in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 77. The case against Cledera and Esmeralda, if there is a prima facie case against them, can be prosecuted separately Page 5 of 5
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
Alphonso Dwane Frazier, Sr. v. Department of Corrections Joe Williams, Warden Corrections Medical Services Terry Dukes, Administration Cathy Rutin, Acting D.O.N. Scott Gretchen, Dietician, Defendants, 125 F.3d 861, 10th Cir. (1997)