Isip vs People
Short Description
some crim pro cases...
Description
ISIP VS PEOPLE FACTS Petitioner Manuel Isip (and his wife Marietta) was coni conicte cted d of Estafa Estafa !efor !efore e the "TC of Caite Cit#$ Marites% howeer% died durin& the pendenc# of the appeal !efore the CA$ The spou spouse ses s were were en&a en&a&e &ed d in the the !u#i !u#in& n& and and sellin& of pled&ed and unredee'ed ewelr# pawned !# &a'!lin& ha!itus$ *oweer% in their heir deali ealin& n&s s with ith Co'p o'plain lainan antt Att#$ Leonardo +ose% the# failed to account for the ewelries &ien to the' to !e sold on co''is co''issio sion$ n$ Also% Also% certai certain n chec,s chec,s the#- the#-e e issued in faor of +ose !ounced$ Procedurall#% petit petition ioner er conten contends ds that that the "TC of Caite Caite has no urisdiction oer the case since the ele'ents of the cri'e did not occur there$ Instead% he ar&ues that the case should hae !een !een .led .led in Manila Manila where where their their suppos supposed ed transactions too, place$ ISS/E0 1hether 1hether the "TC of Caite Caite has urisdiction urisdiction oer the case$ "/LI230 4ES$ 4ES$ The The conc concep eptt of enue enue of acti action ons s in cri'i ri'ina nall case cases% s% unli unli, ,e in ciil iil cases ases%% is urisdictional$ The place where the cri'e was co''itted deter'ines not onl# the enue of the the acti action on !ut !ut is an esse essent ntia iall ele' ele'en entt of urisdiction$ It is a funda'ental rule that for urisdiction to !e ac5uired !# courts in cri'inal cri'inal cases the o6ense should hae !een co''i o''itt tted ed or an# an# one one of its its esse essent ntia iall in&redien in&redients ts should should hae ta,en ta,en place place within within the territ territori orial al urisd urisdict iction ion of the court$ court$ The urisdiction of a court oer the cri'inal case is dete deter' r'in ined ed !# the the alle alle&a &ati tion ons s in the the co'plaint or infor'ation$ And once it is so shown% the court 'a# alidl# ta,e co&n co&ni7 i7an ance ce of the the case case$$ *owe *owee er% r% if the the eidence adduced durin& the trial shows that the o6ense was co''itted so'ewhere else% the court should dis'iss the action for want of urisdicti urisdiction$ on$ Co'plaina Co'plainant nt had su8cientl# su8cientl# shown that the transaction coered !# the case case too, too, plac place e in his ance ancest stra rall ho'e ho'e in Caite Cit# when he was on approed leae of a!se a!senc nce e fro' fro' the the 9ure 9ureau au of Cust Custo' o's$ s$ Sinc Since e it has has !een !een show shown n that that enu enue e was was properl# laid% it is now petitioner:s tas, to proe proe otherw otherwise ise%% since since he clai's clai's that that the transac transactio tion n was enter entered ed into into in Manila Manila$$ *e who alle&es 'ust proe his alle&ations appl#$ appl#$ *ere *e re%% peti petiti tion oner er fail failed ed to pro proe e that that the the transaction happened in Manila$ *e ar&ues that that sinc since e he and and his his late late wife wife actu actual all# l#
resided in Manila% conenience su&&ests that the transaction was entered there$ The Court wasn-t persuaded$ The fact that Caite is a !it far fro' Manila doesn-t necessaril# 'ean tha that the the tran transa sact ctio ion n canno annott or did not not happen there$ ;istance will not preent an# person fro' &oin& to a distant place where he can procure &oods that he can sell so that he can earn a liin&$ It is not i'pro!a!le or i'possi!le the' to hae &one% not once% !ut twic twice e in one one da#% da#% to Cai Caite te if that that is the the nu'!e nu'!err of ti'e ti'es s the# the# rece recei ied ed piec pieces es of ewelr# fro' co'plainant$ Also% the fact that the the chec hec,s issue ssued d were ere draw rawn a&a a&ainst inst acco account unts s with with !an, !an,s s in Mani Manila la or Ma,a Ma,ati ti doesn-t 'ean that the transactions were not entered into in Caite Cit#$ 1hen it co'es to cred credi! i!il ilit it#% #% the the tria triall cour courtt-s s asse assess ss'e 'ent nt deseres &reat wei&ht% and is een conclu conclusi sie e and !indin !indin&% &% if not tainted tainted with with ar!itr ar!itrari ariness ness or oersi oersi&ht &ht of so'e so'e fact fact or circu'stance of wei&ht and in of the th e P*ILIPPI2ES 9ELISTA 9ELISTA FACTS 9eli 9elist sta a is the the owne ownerr of ? par parcels cels of land land placed !# the ;ept$ of A&rarian "efor' (;A") under under theCo' theCo'pr prehe ehensi nsie e A&rari A&rarian an "efor "efor' ' Pro&ra' (P; 2o$ =@ EO 2o$ ==?)$ *e and ;A"BL ;A"BL9P 9P disa disa&r &ree eed d on the the a'ou a'ount nt of ust ust co'pen co'pensat sation ion he deser desered% ed% which which caused caused hi' hi' to .le .le a Petit etitio ion n for for Valua aluati tio on and Pa#'e Pa#'ent nt of +ust +ust Co'pen Co'pensat sation ion !efor !efore e the ;A" ;A"A9" A9"e&iona e&ionall Adud Adudica icator tor for "e&ion e&ion V ("A"A;V)$ The "A"A;V decided in his faor$ A&&rieed% L9P .led an ori&inal Petition for ;eter'ina ;eter'ination tion of +ust Co'pensation Co'pensation at the sa'e sala of the "TC sittin& as SAC$ It was dis'issed on the &round of failure to eDhaust ad'inistratie re'edies$ ISS/E 1hether it is nec necessar# that in cases inolin& clai's for ust co'pensation under "A 2o$ @ that hat the decision of the Adud Adudica icator tor 'ust 'ust .rst .rst !e appeal appealed ed to the ;A"A9 !efore a part# can resort to the "TC sittin& as SAC$ "/LI23 Sections G and @ of "A 2o$ @ proide0 Section G$ Huasiudicial Powers of the ;A"$ The; The;A" A" is here here!# !# est ested ed with with pri' pri'ar ar# # urisdiction to deter'ine and adudicate a&ra a&rari rian an refor efor' ' 'att 'atter ers s and and shal shalll hae hae eDclusie ori&inal urisdiction oer all 'atters ino inol lin& in& the the i'pl i'ple' e'en enta tati tion on of a&ra a&rari rian an refor efor'% '% eDcept ept those hose fal fallin& lin& und under the the eDclusie eDclusie urisdiction urisdiction of the ;epart'ent ;epart'ent of
A&riculture (;A) and the ;epart'ent of Eniron'ent and 2atural "esources(;E2") D section @$ Special +urisdiction$ The Special A&rarian Court shall hae ori&inal and eDclusie urisdiction oerall petitions for the deter'ination of ust co'pensation to landowners% and the prosecution of all cri'inal o6enses under this Act$ D clearl#% under Section G% ;A" has pri'ar# urisdiction to deter'ine and adudicate a&rarian refor' 'atters and eDclusie ori&inal urisdiction oer all 'atters inolin& the i'ple'entation of a&rarian refor'% eDcept those fallin& under the eDclusie urisdiction of the ;A and the ;E2"$ Further eDception to the ;A":s ori&inal and eDclusie urisdiction are all petitions for the deter'ination of ust co'pensation to landowners and the prosecution of all cri'inal o6enses under "A2o$ @% which are within the urisdiction of the "TC sittin& as a SAC$ Thus% urisdiction on ust co'pensation cases for the ta,in& of lands under "A2o$ @ is ested in the courts$ *ere% the trial court properl# ac5uired urisdiction oer 1#coco-s co'plaint for deter'ination of ust co'pensation$ It 'ust !e stressed that althou&h no su''ar# ad'inistratie proceedin& was held !efore the ;A"A9% L9P was a!le to perfor' its le&al 'andate of initiall# deter'inin& the alue of 1icca-s land pursuant to EDecutie Order 2o$ JG% Series of KG$In accordance with settled principles of ad'inistratie law% pri'ar# urisdiction is ested in the ;A" to deter'ine in a Preli'inar# Manner the ust co'pensation for the lands ta,en under the a&rarian refor' pro&ra'% !ut such deter'ination is su!ect to challen&e !efore the courts$ The resolution of ust co'pensation cases for the ta,in& of lands under a&rarian refor' is% after all% essentiall# a udicial function$ 9$ +/"IS;ICTIO2 TO ISS/E *OL;;EPA"T/"E O";E"SK$ MO2;E+A" 9/9A2 FACTS0 Mondear see,s to hold +ud&e 9u!an of the Taclo!an Cit# MTCC ad'inistratiel# lia!le for &ross i&norance of the law% partialit#% serious irre&ularit# and &rae 'isconduct% in relation to a 9P == case a&ainst Mondear$ +ud&e 9u!an alle&edl# issued a hold departure orderN a&ainst her% in iolation of SC Circular 2o$ @% which sa#s that hold departure ordersN'a# onl# !e issued in
cri'inal cases within theeDclusie urisdiction of the "TC$ She also clai's that said order was issued without &iin& her an opportunit# to !e heard$ The ud&e responded% statin& that he was onl# 'ade aware of said order when he instructed his sta6 to secure a cop# fro' the EDecutie +ud&e of the "TC of Tali!an$ After which% he i''ediatel# issued an order settin& aside and liftin& the hold departure orderN$ As re&ards the supposed due process% he sent a notice of hearin& to her and her counsel% !ut neither appeared$ Court Ad'inistrator reco''ended a seere repri'and with a stern warnin& that should it happen a&ain% he would !e dealt with 'ore seerel#$ ISS/E0 1B2 the ud&e is ad'inistratiel# lia!le *EL;0 4ES$ The ud&e is ad'inistratiel# lia!le$ Circular 2o$ @ li'its the authorit# to issue holddeparture orders to cri'inal cases within the urisdiction of second leel courts$ Para&raph 2o$ K of the said circular speci.call# proides that holddeparture orders shall !e issued onl# in cri'inal cases within the eDclusie urisdiction of the re&ional trial courts$N Clearl# then% cri'inal cases within the eDclusie urisdiction of .rst leel courts do not fall within the a'!it of the circular% and it was an error on the part of respondent ud&e to hae issued one in the instant case$ C$ +/"IS;ICTIO2 ;ETE"MI2E; 94 ALLE3ATIO2S OF T*E COMPLAI2TK$ FOQ PEOPLE Facts0 Vicente Fo7 (colu'nist) and ;ann# Faardo (editorpu!lisher) of Pana# 2ews were char&ed with li!el for writin& and pu!lishin& an article a&ainst ;r$ Ed&ar Porti&o K $The "TC found the' &uilt# as char&ed which K That a certain Lita Pa#unan consulted with ;r$ Porti&oR that she had rectu' 'o''a and had to under&o an operation$ Een after sur&er# she still eDperienced di8cult# in urinatin& and defecatin&$ On her = 2d operation% she wo,e to .nd that her anus and a&ina were closed and hole with a catheter punched on her ri&ht side$R she found out she had cancer$R the# spent PKG%GGG for wron& dia&nosis ate a&rarian refor' 'atters and
was a8r'ed !# the CA hence this petition for reiew$ Fo7 and Faardo raised for the .rst ti'e that the infor'ation char&in& the' with li!el did not contain alle&ations su8cient to est urisdiction in the "TC of Iloilo Cit#$ Issue0 1B2 the "TC of Iloilo had urisdiction oer the o6ense *eld0 2O Venue in cri'inal cases is an essential ele'ent of urisdiction$ The o6ense should hae !een co''itted or an# one of its essential ele'ents too, place within the territorial urisdiction of the court$ The urisdiction of the court is deter'ined !# the alle&ations in the co'plaint or infor'ation$ The rules on enue for written defa'ation are as follows0 K$ 1hen o6ended part# is a pu!lic o8cial or priate person .led in "TC of proince or cit# where the li!elous article is printed and .rst pu!lished =$ 1hen o6ended part# is a priate indiidual .led in "TC of proince where he actuall# resided at the ti'e of co''ission of o6ense $ 1hen o6ended part# is a pu!lic o8cer whose o8ce is in Manila .led in "TC of ManilaJ$1hen o6ended part# is a pu!lic o8cer holdin& o8ce outside Manila .led in "TC of proince or cit# where he held o8ce at the ti'e of co''ission of the o6ense ;r$ Porti&o is a priate indiidual at the ti'e of thepu!lication of the li!elous article% the enue 'a# !ethe "TC of the proinceBcit# where the li!elous articlewas printed and .rst pu!lished O" where he actuall#resided at the ti'e of the co''ission of the o6ense$ The Infor'ation releant to "EMU states onl# that D DD !oth the accused as colu'nists and editorpu!lisher% respectiel# of Pana# 2ews% a dail# pu!lication with considera!le circulation in the Cit# of Iloilo and throu&hout the re&ion DN$ Such did not esta!lish that the said pu!lication was printed and pu!lished in Iloilo Cit#$ As cited in = other cases% the SC held that if it would !e held that the infor'ation su8cientl# ests urisdiction on the alle&ation that the pu!lication was in &eneral circulation in place where case is .ledU% there would !e no i'pedi'ent to the .lin& of the li!el action in other location where the pu!lication is in &eneral circulation$ Such was not the intent of "A
J$On residence the infor'ation failed to alle&e the residence of ;r$ Porti&o$ 1hile the infor'ation alle&es that ;r$ Porti&o is a ph#sician and 'edical practitioner in Iloilo Cit#N% it did not clearl# and positiel# indicate that he was actuall# residin& in Iloilo Cit# at the ti'e of the co''ission of the o6ense$ It was possi!le that he was actuall# residin& in another place$ "esidence of a person is his personal% actual or ph#sical ha!itation or his actual residence or place of a!ode proided he resides therein with continuit# and consistenc# no particular len&th of ti'e is re5uired$ "esidence 'ust !e 'ore than te'porar#$ ;$ +/"IS;ICTIO2 OF SA2;I3A29A4A2K$ PEOPLE SA2;I3A29A4A2 FACTS0 Victoria A'ante was a 'e'!er of the San&&unian& Panlun&sod Of Toledo Cit#% Proince of Ce!u at the ti'e pertinent to this case$ On +anuar# KJ% KJ% she was a!le to &et hold of a cash adance in the a'ount of P@K%G$GG under a dis!urse'ent oucher in order to defra# se'inar eDpenses of the Co''ittee on *ealth and Eniron'ental Protection% which she headed$ As of ;ece'!er K% K% or after al'ost two #ears since she o!tained the said cash adance% no li5uidation was 'ade$ Co''ission on Audit sent a report to O8ce of the ;eput# O'!uds'an% which then issued a resolution reco''endin& the .lin& of Infor'ation for iolatin& the Auditin& Code of the Philippines a&ainst respondent A'ante$ The O8ce of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)% upon reiew of the OM9Visa#as: "esolution% on April % =GGK% prepared a 'e'orandu' .ndin& pro!a!le cause to indict respondent A'ante$ The OSP .led Infor'ation with the Sandi&an!a#an accusin& Victoria A'ante of iolatin& Section ? of P$;$2o$ KJJ alle&in& that with deli!erate intent and intent to &ain% did then and there% willfull#% unlawfull# and cri'inall# fail to li5uidate said cash adances of P@K%G$GG$N The OSP .led an Infor'ation with the Sandi&an!a#an accusin& Victoria A'ante of iolatin& Section ? of P$;$ 2o$ KJJ%A'ante countered !# sa#in& a'on&st others that Sandi&an!a#an had no urisdiction oer the said cri'inal case !ecause respondent A'ante was then local o8cial who was occup#in& a position of salar# &rade =% whereas Section J of
"epu!lic Act ("$A$) 2o$?=J proides that the Sandi&an!a#an shall hae ori&inal urisdiction onl# in cases where the accused holds a position otherwise classi.ed as 3rade =@ and hi&her% of the Co'pensation and Position Classi.cation Act of K?% "$A$ 2o$ @?$ ISS/E0 1hether or not a 'e'!er of the San&&unian& Panlun&sod /nder Salar# 3rade = who was char&ed with iolation of The Auditin& Code of the Philippines falls within the urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an$ "/LI230 The applica!le law in this case is Section J of P$;$ 2o$KG% as a'ended !# Section = of "$A$ 2o$ @@ which too, e6ect on Ma# K% K% which was a&ain a'ended on Fe!ruar# % K@ !# "$A$ 2o$ ?=J$ The alle&ed co''ission of the o6ense% as shown in the Infor'ation was on or a!out ;ece'!er K% K and the .lin& of the Infor'ation was on Ma# =K% =GGJ$ The urisdiction of a court to tr# a cri'inal case is to !e deter'ined at the ti'e of the institution of the action% not at the ti'e of the co''ission of the o6ense$ The eDception contained in "$A$ @@% as well as "$A$ ?=J%where it eDpressl# proides that to deter'ine the urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an in cases inolin& iolations of "$A$ 2o$ GK% as a'ended% "$A$ 2o$ K@%and Chapter II% Section =% Title VII of the "eised Penal Code is not applica!le in the present case as the o6ense inoled herein is a iolation of The Auditin& Code of the Philippines$ The last clause of the openin& sentence of para&raph (a) of the said two proisions states0Sec$ J$ +urisdiction$ The Sandi&an!a#an shall eDercise eDclusie ori&inal urisdiction in all cases inolin&0 A$ Violations of "epu!lic Act 2o$ GK% as a'ended% other ,nown as the Anti3raft and Corrupt Practices Act% "epu!lic Act 2o$ K@% and Chapter II% Section =% Title VII% 9oo, II of the "eised Penal Code% where one or 'ore of the accused are o8cials occup#in& the followin& positions in the &oern'ent% whether in a per'anent% actin& or interi' capacit#% At the ti'e of the co''ission of the o6ense The present case falls under Section J(!) where other o6enses and felonies Co''itted !# pu!lic o8cials or e'plo#ees in relation to their o8ce are inoled$
/nder the said proision% no eDception is contained$ Thus% the &eneral rule that urisdiction of court to tr# a cri'inal case is to !e deter'ined at the ti'e of the institution of the action% not at the ti'e of the co''ission of the o6ense applies in this present case$ Since the present case was instituted on Ma# =K%=GGJ% the proisions of "$A$ 2o$ ?=J shall &oern$ This Court had ruled that as lon& as the o6ense char&ed in the infor'ation is inti'atel# connected with the o8ce and is alle&ed to hae !een perpetrated while the accused was in the perfor'ance% thou&h i'proper or irre&ular% of his o8cial functions% there !ein& no personal 'otie to co''it the cri'e and had the accused not hae co''itted it had he not held the aforesaid o8ce% the accused is held to hae !een indicted for Wan o6ense co''itted in relationW to his o8ce $ 2ote also that0 Those that are classi.ed as 3rade = and !elow 'a# still fall within the urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an proided that the# hold the positions thus enu'erated !# "$A$ 2o$ GK$ Particularl# and eDclusiel# enu'erated are proincial &oernors% ice &oernors% 'e'!ers of the san&&unian& panlalawi&an% and proincial treasurers% assessors% en&ineers% and other proincial depart'ent heads cit# 'a#ors% ice'a#ors% 'e'!ers of the san&&unian& panlun&sod% cit# treasurers% assessors% en&ineers % and other cit# depart'ent heads o8cials of the diplo'atic serice occup#in& the position as consul and hi&her Philippine ar'# and air force colonels% naal captains% and all o8cers of hi&her ran, P2P chief superintendent and P2P o8cers of hi&her ran, Cit# and proincial prosecutors and their assistants% and o8cials and prosecutors in the O8ce of the O'!uds'an and special prosecutor and presidents% directors or trustees% or 'ana&ers of &oern'entowned or controlled corporations% state uniersities or educational institutions or foundations$ In connection therewith% Section J(!) of the sa'e law proides that other o6enses or felonies co''itted !# pu!lic o8cials and e'plo#ees 'entioned in su!section (a) in relation to their o8ce also fall under the urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an$ =$ SE""A2A SA2;I3A29A4A2 Facts0
Serana was a senior student and a &oern'ent scholar of /PCe!u$ She was appointed !# then President Estrada as a student re&ent of /P% to sere a one#ear ter'$ She discussed with President Estrada the renoation of Vinson-s *all AnneD in /P ;ili'an$ 1ith her si!lin&s and relaties% Serana re&istered with the SEC the O8ce of the Student "e&ent Foundation% Inc$ (OS"FI)$ One of the proects of the OS"FI was the renoation of the Vinson-s *all AnneD$ President Estrada &ae PKM to the OS"FI as .nancial assistance for the proposed renoation$ The source of the funds% accordin& to the infor'ation% was the O8ce of the President $*oweer% the renoation of Vin7ons *all AnneD failed to 'ateriali7e$ *ence% the succeedin& student re&ent% .led a co'plaint for Malersation of Pu!lic Funds and Propert# with the O8ce of the O'!uds'an$ And the O'!uds'an% after due inesti&ation% found pro!a!le cause to indict Serana and her !rother for estafa$ Serana 'oed to 5uash the infor'ation$ She clai'ed that the Sandi&an!a#an does not hae an# urisdiction oer the o6ense char&ed or oer her person% in her capacit# as /P student re&ent$ Issue0 1hether Sandi&an!a#an has urisdiction to tr# &oern'ent scholar and a student re&ent% alon& wither !rother (a priate indiidual)% of swindlin& &oern'ent funds 4ES "atio0K$ The urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an is set !# P$;$ 2o$ KG% as a'ended% not !# "$A$ 2o$GK% as a'ended$ Sec$ J$ +urisdiction$ The Sandi&an!a#an shall eDercise eDclusie ori&inal urisdiction in all cases inolin&0 A$ DDD (K) O8cials of the eDecutie !ranch occup#in& the positions of re&ional director and hi&her% otherwise classi.ed as 3rade W=@W and hi&her% of the Co'pensation and Position Classi.cation Act of ?("epu!lic Act 2o$ @?)% speci.call# includin&0 DDD W (&) Presidents% directors or trustees% or 'ana&ers of &oern'entowned or controlled corporations% state uniersities or educational institutions or foundations$ =$ Sandi&an!a#an has urisdiction oer the o6ense of estafa$ Section J(9) of P$;$ 2o$ KG reads-$ Other o6enses or felonies whether si'ple or co'pleDed with other cri'es co''itted !# the pu!lic o8cials and e'plo#ees 'entioned
in su!section a of this section in relation to their o8ce$ The urisdiction is si'pl# su!ect to the twin re5uire'ents that (a) the o6ense is co''itted !# pu!lic o8cials and e'plo#ees and that (!) the o6ense is co''itted in relation to their o8ce$ Plainl#% estafa is one of those other felonies$ $ Petitioner /P student re&ent is a pu!lic o8cer$ Petitioner clai's that she is not a pu!lic o8cer with Salar# 3rade =@ she is% in fact% a re&ular tuition feepa#in& student$ This is li,ewise !ereft of 'erit$ It is not onl# the salar# &rade that deter'ines the urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an$ The Sandi&an!a#an also has urisdiction oer other o8cers enu'erated in P$;$ 2o$KG$1hile the .rst part of Section J(A) coers onl# o8cials with Salar# 3rade =@ and hi&her% its second part speci.call# includes other eDecutie o8cials whose positions 'a# not !e of Salar# 3rade =@ and hi&her !ut who are !# eDpress proision of law placed under the urisdiction of the said court$ Petitioner falls under the urisdiction of the Sandi&an!a#an as she is placed there !# eDpress proision of law$ As the Sandi&an!a#an pointed out% the 9O" perfor's functions si'ilar to those of a !oard of trustees of anonstoc, Corporation$ Moreoer% it is well esta!lished that co'pensation is not an essential ele'ent of pu!lic o8ce$ At 'ost% it is 'erel# incidental to the pu!lic o8ce$ J$ The o6ense char&ed was co''itted in relation to pu!lic o8ce% accordin& to the Infor'ation$ It is aDio'atic that urisdiction is deter'ined !# the aer'ents in the infor'ation$ In the case at !ench% the infor'ation alle&ed% in no uncertain ter's that petitioner% !ein& then a student re&ent of /$P$% Wwhile in the perfor'ance of her o8cial functions% co''ittin& the o6ense in relation to her o8ce and ta,in& adanta&e of her position% with intent to &ainXN $ ESH/IVEL SA2;I3A29A4A2(!orrowed fro' C) FACTS0 PO= Eduardo and SPOK Catacutan are assi&ned to the "e&ional Intelli&ence and Inesti&ation ;iision of San Fernando Pa'pan&a$ The# .led their co'plaint a8daits with the CI;3 a&ainst petitioners AntonioEs5uiel (the 'unicipal 'a#or +aen%
2uea Ecia) and his !rother E!o# Es5uiel$ The# cri'es co'plained of were ille&al arrest% ar!itrar# detention% 'altreat'ent% atte'pted 'urder and &rae threats$ Seeral other police o8cers were accused with the Es5uiels$ The initial inesti&ation showed that on MarchK?% Eduardo was in his parents- house% a!out to eat lunch when E5uiels arried with other police o8cers$ The# disar'ed Eduardo and forced hi' to !oard their ehicle and !rou&ht hi' to the 'unicipal hall$ On the wa#% Ma#or Es5uiel 'auled hi' and threatened to ,ill hi' while pointin& a &un at Eduardo$ /pon arrial at the town hall% Ma#or Es5uiel ordered a certain SPOK Espiritu to ,ill Eduardo !utSPOK Catacutan arried to erif# what happened to Eduardo$ The 'a#or threatened hi' as well$ The 'a#or continued to harass% threaten and in
View more...
Comments
