G.R. No. 232413. July 25, 2017

'''G.R. No. 232413 [Formerly UDK 15419]. July 25, 2017''' is a decisions 2017 made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PETITION FOR RELIEF INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES PANGASINAN LEGAL AID and JAY-AR R. SENIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Jose Catral Mendoza

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63321

The petition claims that as a result of jail visitations participated in by the IBP Legal Aid Program, as well as a series of consultations with the Philippine National Police (PNP) on the extant condition of detention prisoners, it was discovered that several detention prisoners had been languishing in jail for years without a case being filed in court by the prosecutor's office and without definite findings as to the existence or non-existence of probable cause.

History of the DOJ Issuances The process of automatic review of dismissed drug cases was first instituted in 2003 Due to numerous complaints about illegal drug cases being whitewashed or dismissed due to sloppy police work, former SOJ Simeon Datumanong issued D.C. No. 46, empowering the DOJ to automatically review dismissed cases filed in violation of R.A. No. 9165 and involving the maximum penalty of life imprisonment or death. The circular also applied to cases which had been dismissed prior to its issuance if such dismissal had not yet attained finality as of the date of the circular. A year after, SOJ De Lima revised the guidelines directing the continued detention of some respondents accused of violating R.A. No. 9165. She reasoned that cases, where the maximum imposable penalty reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, are presumably high-priority drug cases whose alleged perpetrators should remain in custody. In this circular, the only respondents who may be released, pending automatic review of their cases by the SOJ, are those whose cases were dismissed during inquest proceedings on the ground that the arrest was not a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, or that no probable cause exists to charge respondents in court. The respondents shall remain in custody, pending automatic review of the dismissal of their cases, in the following instances as provided for under the circular: In order to address the problem of delay in the disposition of cases subject to automatic review and the prolonged detention of drug suspects without any case filed against them, then SOJ Caguioa issued In view of the considerable number of petitions for habeas corpus filed against the DOJ by accused languishing in jail for years while their cases were pending automatic review by the DOJ, then SOJ Caguioa revoked D.C. No. 50 dated December 18, 2015 and D.C. No. 22, dated February 12, 2013. SOJ Caguioa then reinstated D.C. No. 12, dated February 13, 2012, mandating immediate release of respondents pending automatic review, unless respondents are detained for other causes. SOJ Vitaliano Aguirre, in this latest circular, reiterated the provisions of D.C. No. 3, dated January 13, 2016, in so far as it orders the respondent/s to be immediately released from detention, pending automatic review, unless detained for other causes.
 * D. C. No. 46, dated June 26, 2003
 * D.C. No. 12, dated February 13, 2012
 * D.C. No. 46 was followed by D.C. No. 12 in which former SOJ Leila M. De Lima, for the most part, reiterated the provisions of the first circular but added that automatic review of dismissed drug cases shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to be immediately released from detention pending automatic review, unless respondent is detained for other causes.
 * D.C. No. 22, dated February 12, 2013
 * 1) When during inquest proceedings, respondent elects to avail of a regular preliminary investigation and waives in writing the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC;
 * 2) When an information is filed in court after inquest proceedings and the accused is placed in the custody of the law, but the court allows the accused to avail of a regular preliminary investigation, which results in the dismissal of the case, the handling prosecutor shall insist that the accused shall remain in the custody of the law pending automatic review by the SOJ, unless the court provides otherwise, or until the dismissal is affirmed by the SOJ and the corresponding motion to dismiss or withdraw information is granted by the court;
 * 3) When an information is filed in court after preliminary investigation proceedings and the accused is placed in the custody of the law, but the court allows the accused to avail of reinvestigation, which results in the dismissal of the case, the accused shall remain in custody of the law pending automatic review by the SOJ, unless the court provides otherwise, or until the dismissal is affirmed by the SOJ and the corresponding motion to dismiss or withdraw information is granted by the court; and
 * 4) When the case against respondent is dismissed after due reinvestigation, if the case was commenced as an inquest case but was converted to a regular preliminary investigation after respondent elected the same and waived the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC.
 * D.C. No. 50, dated December 18, 2015
 * D. C. No. 50, directing all heads of prosecution offices to immediately issue corresponding release orders in favor of respondents whose cases are still pending automatic review before the SOJ beyond the 30-day period prescribed in the subject circular, unless respondents are detained for some other causes.
 * D. C. No. 003, dated January 13, 2016
 * D.C. No. 004, dated January 4, 2017

Info
of a detainee's right to be delivered to proper judicial authorities as prescribed by Article 125 of the RPC does not trump his constitutional right in cases where probable cause was initially found wanting by reason of the dismissal of the complaint filed before the prosecutor's office even if such dismissal is on appeal, reconsideration, reinvestigation or on automatic review. Every person's basic right to liberty is not to be construed as waived by mere operation of Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The fundamental law provides limits and this must be all the more followed especially so that detention is proscribed absent probable cause.
 * Stated differently, the waiver of the effects of Article 125 of the RPC is not a license to detain a person ad infinitum. Waiver
 * Accordingly, the Court rules that a detainee under such circumstances must be promptly released to avoid violation of the constitutional right to liberty, despite a waiver of Article 125, if the 15-day period (or the thirty 30- day period in cases of violation of R.A. No. 91659 ) for the conduct of the preliminary investigation lapses. This rule also applies in cases where the investigating prosecutor resolves to dismiss the case, even if such dismissal was appealed to the DOJ or made the subject of a motion for reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review. The reason is that such dismissal automatically results in a prima facie finding of lack of probable cause to file an information in court and to detain a person.

Decision
WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared, and ruled, that all detainees whose pending cases have gone beyond the mandated periods for the conduct of preliminary investigation, or whose cases have already been dismissed on inquest or preliminary investigation, despite pending appeal, reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review by the Secretary of Justice, are entitled to be released pursuant to their constitutional right to liberty and their constitutional right against unreasonable seizures, unless detained for some other lawful cause.

Trivia

 * *DOJ