Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ladlad v. Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Biz Manzano Manzon
    276 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled there was no probable cause to indict Crispin Beltran for rebellion based on evidence presented during the inquest. The evidence consisted mainly of affidavits from military and civilians that did not directly implicate Beltran in any criminal acts. At most, the affidavits showed Beltran's presence at a meeting in 1992 and in Batangas in 2006, but did not allege he committed specific acts of rebellion. Mere presence at events did not prove Beltran was a leader of an armed uprising against the government as required.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled there was no probable cause to indict Crispin Beltran for rebellion based on evidence presented during the inquest. The evidence consisted mainly of affidavits from military and civilians that did not directly implicate Beltran in any criminal acts. At most, the affidavits showed Beltran's presence at a meeting in 1992 and in Batangas in 2006, but did not allege he committed specific acts of rebellion. Mere presence at events did not prove Beltran was a leader of an armed uprising against the government as required.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    276 views2 pages

    Ladlad v. Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Biz Manzano Manzon
    The Supreme Court ruled there was no probable cause to indict Crispin Beltran for rebellion based on evidence presented during the inquest. The evidence consisted mainly of affidavits from military and civilians that did not directly implicate Beltran in any criminal acts. At most, the affidavits showed Beltran's presence at a meeting in 1992 and in Batangas in 2006, but did not allege he committed specific acts of rebellion. Mere presence at events did not prove Beltran was a leader of an armed uprising against the government as required.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    G.R. Nos.

    172070-72

    June 1, 2007

    VICENTE P. LADLAD, NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO, RANDALL B. ECHANIS, and REY CLARO C. CASAMBRE, Petitioners, vs. SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR JOSELITA C. MENDOZA, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AILEEN MARIE S. GUTIERREZ, STATE PROSECUTOR IRWIN A. MARAYA, and STATE PROSECUTOR MERBA A. WAGA, in their capacity as members of the Department of Justice panel of prosecutors investigating I.S. Nos. 2006-225, 2006-226 and 2006-234, JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO C. LOMIBAO, in his capacity as Chief, Philippine National Police, P/CSUPT. RODOLFO B. MENDOZA, JR., and P/SUPT. YOLANDA G. TANIGUE, Respondents.
    F: On February 24, 2006, PGMA signed Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a State of National Emergency. Following that, police officers arrested Crispin Beltran on while he was en route to Marilao, Bulacan, and detained him in Camp Crame. Beltran was arrested without a warrant and the arresting officers did not inform Beltran of the crime for which he was arrested. He was subjected to a first inquest involving the crime of inciting to sedition. This was based on a speech Beltran allegedly gave during a rally in Quezon City on 24 February 2006. Inquest prosecutor found probable cause. BASIS: joint affidavit of Beltrans arresting officers who claimed to have been present at the rally. He was also subjected to a second inquest involving the crime of rebellion conducted by DOJ state prosecutors. The inquest was based on two letters from CIDG executive officer and deputy director. The letters contained results of CIDGs investigation implicating Beltran, et al as leaders and promoters of an alleged foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. DOJ state prosecutors found probable cause. Beltran opposes the second inquest finding probable cause that he committed rebellion and that such inquest was void. I: H/R: WN there is probable cause to indict Beltran for Rebellion. NO.

    The evidence before the panel of prosecutors who conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion consisted of the affidavits and other documents attached to the CIDG letters. We have gone over these documents and find merit in Beltrans contention that the same are insufficient to show probable cause to indict him for Rebellion. The bulk of the documents consists of affidavits, some of which were sworn before a notary public, executed by members of the military and some civilians. Except for two affidavits, executed by a certain Ruel Escala (Escala), dated 20 Febuary 2006, and Raul Cachuela (Cachuela), dated 23 February 2006, none of the affidavits mentions Beltran. In his affidavit, Escala

    recounted that in the afternoon of 20 February 2006, he saw Beltran, Ocampo, Casio, Maza, Mariano, Virador, and other individuals on board a vehicle which entered a chicken farm in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas and that after the passengers alighted, they were met by another individual who looked like San Juan. For his part, Cachuela stated that he was a former member of the CPP and that (1) he attended the CPPs "10th Plenum" in 1992 where he saw Beltran; (2) he took part in criminal activities; and (3) the arms he and the other CPP members used were purchased partly from contributions by Congressional members, like Beltran, who represent party-list groups affiliated with the CPP. The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against the government. What these documents prove, at best, is that Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February 2006 and that 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP Plenum. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006. None of the affidavits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltrans alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.

    You might also like