Lui v Matillano

8/9/2019 Lui v Matillano

1/38


2/38

epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME OUR!

anila

2+$13 3I*I2I1

".R. #o. $%$$&' Ma( )&* )++%

E,- ,U- and ,EO RO/S*petitioners,

vs.

SPOUSES EU,O"-O and P/U,-#/ M/!-,,/#O*respondents.

3 + $ I 2 I 1

/,,EO* SR.* J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the 3ecision:of the

$ourt of "ppeals in $";9.. $* 1o. 44 which reversed and set

aside the decision of the egional Trial $ourt of 'ansalan, 3avao

del 2ur, 'ranch ?:.?

The "ntecedents

2ometime in 2eptember :@>


3/38


4/38

terminated on ctober :@, :@>>, he discovered that he had

lost P45,000.00 in cash. 8e suspected that /ariosa was the culprit

because the latter, as a former employee, had a duplicate key to

the side door of the (nited Products +nterprise 2tore.

"t @00 a.m. on 1ovember =, :@>>, a 2unday, /ariosa went to the

house of Pagsa and alang to retrieve his things. The two invited

/ariosa to go with them to the beach, and when /ariosa agreed,

they borrowed /uiAs 7ord 7ierra for their transportation. The

vehicle stopped at the "lmendras 8all where Pagsa alighted on

the prete&t that he was going to buy sh. /ariosa, ene, and his

wife remained in the 7ierra. Pagsa contacted /ui and informed the

latter that /ariosa was with him.

"fter about an hour, /ui arrived on board a vehicle. )ith him were

Pagsa and two others, "lan endo%a and 8enry Tan. /ui told

/ariosa that he wanted to talk, and asked the latter to go with

him. Pagsa urged /ariosa to go along with /ui. /ariosa agreed and

boarded /uiAs vehicle. The car stopped in front of /uiAs house,

where the latter alighted and went inside, while his companions

and /ariosa remained in the car. )hen /ui returned, he was

armed with a @ mm. caliber gun and poked /ariosa with the

weapon. 8e warned /ariosa not to run, otherwise, he would be

killed. The group went to 'enAs house to get the keys to the store.

'en Coined them as they drove towards the store.

/ui mauled /ariosa and tried to force the latter to admit that he

had stolen 'enAs money. /ariosa refused to do so. /ui then

brought /ariosa to the comfort room of the store and pushed his

face into the toilet bowl, in an attempt to force him intoconfessing to the crime. /ariosa still refused to admit to anything.

/ui then made a telephone call to the etrodiscom GP1PH based in

3avao $ity.


5/38

2gt. "lberto 9enise of the etrodiscom GP1PH issued ission

rder 1o. 7;";004;>> dated 1ovember =, :@>>, directing Pat.

/eo oCas to follow up a theft case committed in 3avao $ity from

:?E0 p.m. to 500 p.m. oCas was directed to coordinate with the

nearest P1P headuarters andJor stations. 8e was authori%ed tocarry his rearm for the mission. 8e then left the police station on

board a police car and proceeded to the corner of agsaysay and

9empesaw 2treets.

In the meantime, a police car arrived at the store with two

policemen on board. ne of them handcu!ed /ariosa at gunpoint

and ordered him to open the store with the use of the keys. "s

/ariosa opened the lock as ordered, one of /uiAs companions tookhis picture. "nother picture was taken as /ariosa held the door

knob to open the door. /ariosa was then boarded in the police car

and brought to the corner of agsaysay and 9emphesaw 2treets

where he was transferred to the police car driven by oCas. 8e

was brought to the etrodiscom headuarters. /ui once more

mauled /ariosa, still trying to force the latter to confess that he

stole P45,000.00 from his uncle and to reveal what he did with the

money. )hen a policeman asked him where he slept the night

before, /ariosa replied that he spent the night in the house of his

girlfriendAs parents at 1ew atina, 3avao $ity. The policemen

brought /ariosa there, where they asked 1ancy if /ariosa had left

anything while he slept thereat. 1ancy replied that /ariosa had

left a radio cassette and a pair of sunglasses. The policemen took

these and brought /ariosa back to the etrodiscom headuarters

where /ui and his two companions were waiting.

/ui asked /ariosa where he stayed when he went to 'ansalan, and/ariosa replied that he used to stay in the house of his aunt and

uncle, the 2pouses atillano, in /ily 2treet, Poblacion 'ansalan.

oCas and /ui then brought /ariosa, with his hands still

handcu!ed, to a car. /uiAs companions, "lan endo%a and 8enry


6/38


7/38

Paulina was so unnerved by the incident. 8er vision blurred, her

stomach ached and she was on the verge of losing consciousness.

$oncerned, +rlinda massaged PaulinaAs stomach. 8owever,

+rlinda had to leave because she was worried about her mother.

Paulina then went to the kitchen, prepared hot water and put asoothing ointment on her stomach to relieve the pain.

In the meantime, /ui and his companions proceeded to the

'ansalan Police 2tation and caused an entry in the police blotter

at E?0 p.m. that he had recovered the following items from the

atillano residence ;; one pair of colored blue pants valued

at P>@.006 one Loor mat costing [email protected] a pair of black ladiesA

shoes worth P:?=.006 and another pair of ladiesA shoesworth [email protected].

"t 4E0 p.m., Paulina reported to the barangay captain that

persons identifying themselves as policemen had gained entry

into their house and took the following two polo shirts6 two t;

shirts6 two pairs of pants6 two Loor mats6 two pairs of ladies

shoes6 one 'ulova wristwatch6 one necklace6 one ring6 and old

coins.E

"t


8/38

:5, :@>> from the 3avao (nited Products, and that he used part

of the money to buy appliances, a 2ony cassette tape;recorder,

two pairs of ladiesA shoes, a 2eiko wristwatch, two pairs of maong

pants, ayban sunglasses and Loor mats.=

n 1ovember :=, :@>>, an Information was led in the egional

Trial $ourt of 3avao $ity, charging /ariosa with robbery with force

upon things. The case was docketed as $riminal $ase 1o.

:>.@,

acuitting /ariosa of the crime charged on reasonable doubt. The

trial court held that /ui procured /ariosaAs confession through

force and intimidation, in connivance with police authorities.>The

trial court, likewise, found that /ui had an ulterior motive forcharging /ariosa of robbery

)hat would have been the possible motive of complainant in

putting the burden of this charged against the accused

despite want of any appreciable evidence, can be gathered

in the record, as indicating the fear of complainant, that the

accused will le a complaint against him in the 3epartment

of /abor for illegally dismissing him in his employment,

without any suFcient legal grounds and basis. This

unfounded complaint was intended to support complainantAs

ground against any possible complaint, the accused might

le against him with the 3epartment of /abor by way of

anticipation.@

n motion of /ariosa, the trial court ordered the return of the

following e&hibits

"ccordingly and conformably with the Cudgment of this court

dated Kune :4, :@>@, one +ulogio atillano, accusedAs uncle,

is hereby allowed to get or to retrieve e&hibits 8, I, K,

B, /, and , consisting of 2ony $assette with serial no.

)E=5>6 ayban sunglasses6 two G?H bundles of Loor mat6


9/38

two G?H pairs of pants6 two G?H pairs of ladiesA shoes6 and

2eiko "ctus wristwatch.:0

eanwhile, Paulina atillano led a criminal complaint for robbery

against /ui, Peter 3oe, Kohn 3oe and "lan endo%a. "nInformation was, thereafter, led against them in the unicipal

$ircuit Trial $ourt of 'ansalan, 3avao del 2ur, and the case was

docketed as $riminal $ase 1o. >>0;'. n 3ecember :E, :@>>, the

court issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused therein. (pon

reinvestigation, however, the Provincial Prosecutor issued a

esolution dated arch E:, :@>@, recommending that the case be

dismissed for insuFciency of evidence, but that the charges be

forwarded to the Kudge "dvocate 9eneralAs Fce for possibleadministrative sanctions against oCas.

)8++7+, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully

recommended that the complaint against the respondents +li /ui

be dismissed for insuFciency of evidence. $onsidering that Pat.

/eo oCas is a member of the Integrated 1ational Police, this oFce

is without Curisdiction to entertain the complaint against him

pursuant to Presidential 3ecree 1o. :>50. Therefore, let the

complaint against Pat. /eo oCas, together with its anne&es,

including a copy of the resolution of the undersigned, be

forwarded to the Kudge "dvocate 9eneralAs Fce at $amp

$atitipan, 3avao $ity, for whatever action it may take.::

The complaint was docketed as "dministrative $ase 1o. @?;00?0.

The 1ational Police $ommission, thereafter, rendered a decision

e&onerating oCas of administrative liability for the complainantAs

failure to substantiate the charges.:?

The $ommission held thatoCas was merely complying with the mission order issued to him

when he accompanied /ui and the latterAs two companions to the

atillano residence.


10/38

In a esolution dated "ugust ?5, :@>@, then 2ecretary of Kustice

2ilvestre 8. 'ello III dismissed the petition for review of the

Provincial ProsecutorAs resolution led by Paulina atillano. The

2ecretary of Kustice, likewise, denied a motion for reconsideration

thereon.

In a parallel development, /ariosaAs parents, as well as Paulina

atillano, led a complaint for robbery, violation of domicile,

unlawful arrest andJor arbitrary detention against /eo oCas, +li

/ui, et al., with the $ommission of 8uman ights docketed as $8

$ase 1o. 7 1o. >>;0?0@, the egional Fce of the $ommission recommended, thus

)8++7+, premises considered, we are recommending

that there is suFcientprima facieevidence

:. to indict +li /ui for unlawful arrest as dened under

"rt. E=@ of the evised Penal $ode, as amended6 and

?. to indict both +li /ui and Pat. /eo oCas liable for

*iolation of 3omicile, as dened under "rt. :?> of the

same code.:E

!he Proceedings in the !rial ourt

n Kanuary ::, :@@0, the spouses +ulogio and Paulina atillano

led a civil complaint for damages in the egional Trial $ourt of

3avao del 2ur against +li /ui, /eo oCas, "lan endo%a and 8enry

Tan. The case was docketed as $ivil $ase 1o. 9;MMI;4


11/38


12/38

@. That in the protection of their rights, plainti!s engaged

the services of counsel for an agreed attorneyAs fees

euivalent to ?5N of the total award plus per diem

of P:,000.00 per court appearance6

:0. That plainti!s are bound to incur litigation e&penses in

an amount not less than P:0,000.006:4

They prayed that, after due proceedings, Cudgment be rendered in

their favor, viz

)8++7+, it is most respectfully prayed that after hearing

Cudgment issue ordering the defendants to Cointly and

severally pay plainti!s

:. P500,000.00 as moral damages6

?. PE00,000.00 as e&emplary damages6

E. /itigation e&penses of P:0,000.006

4. "ttorneyAs fees euivalent to ?5N of the total award6

5. Per diems to be proved during the trial of this case.

Plainti!s pray for other reliefs consistent with euity.:5

In their "nswer to the complaint, the defendants therein alleged,

inter alia, that they did not conduct a search in the house of the

plainti!s and that plainti! Paulina atillano allowed them to enter

the house and even brought out pairs of pants. They added that

the other items were brought out by /ariosaAs sister and that theytook only one G:H Loor mat, two G?H pairs of ladiesA shoes, and one

G:H pair of blue pants.:=

The defendants adduced evidence that plainti! Paulina atillano

allowed them to enter their house, and with /ariosaAs sister,


13/38

voluntarily turned over the items declared in the complaint. They

testied that no violence, threats or intimidation were even

committed by them against Paulina atillano. 3efendant oCas

further testied that he was merely complying with the ission

rder issued to him when he entered the house of the plainti!s inthe company of the other defendants, and that he remained in

the ground Loor while the other defendants retrieved the goods

from plainti! atillano in the second Loor of the house.

n "ugust :>, :@@E, the T$ rendered Cudgment, ordering the

dismissal of the complaint for plainti!sA failure to prove their

claims. The trial court also dismissed the defendantsA

counterclaims. The trial court gave credence to the collectivetestimonies of the defendants, that plainti! Paulina atillano

voluntarily allowed them to enter her house, and that the latter

voluntarily turned over the subCect items to them. The trial court

took into account the ndings of the Provincial Prosecutor, the

2ecretary of Kustice, the 1ational Police $ommission, as well as

the order of the unicipal $ircuit Trial $ourt of 'ansalan,

dismissing $riminal $ase 1o. >>0;'.

!he ase on /00eal

The decision of the trial court was elevated to the $ourt of

"ppeals where the appellants contended, thus

:. T8+ /)+ $(T ++3 I1 7I13I19 T8"T "PP+//"1T

P"(/I1" "TI//"1 */(1T"I/- "//)+3 "PP+//++2 T

+1T+ T8+ 8(2+ '+$"(2+ 7 T8+ P+2+1$+ 7 8+

1+P8+) +/I1IT /"I2" )8 )"2 8"13$(77+36

?. T8+ /)+ $(T ++3 I1 7I13I19 T8"T 2.

P"(/I1" "TI//"1 )"2 T8+ 1+ )8 +PT+3 T8+

"TT+ T T8+ '"12"/"1 P/I$+ 2T"TI1.


14/38

E. T8+ /)+ $(T ++3 I1 3I2I22I19 T8+ $P/"I1T

3+2PIT+ $/+" P+P13+"1$+ 7 +*I3+1$+ "9"I12T

T8+ 3+7+13"1T2 O "PP+//++2.:

The appellate court denied the appelleesA motion for

reconsideration of the said decision. The appellees endo%a and

Tan no longer appealed the decision.

Petitioners +li /ui and /eo oCas now assail the decision of the

$ourt of "ppeals contending that

I. T8+ 81"'/+ $(T 7 "PP+"/2 3I2+9"3+3 T8+

TI+;81+3 3$TI1+ /"I3 3)1 '- T8I2 81"'/+

$(T T8"T 7I13I192 7 TI"/ $(T "+ 'I13I19 "13

$1$/(2I*+ "13 3+2+*+ " 8I98 3+9++ 7 +2P+$T,

)8+1 IT 2+T "2I3+ T8+ 7I13I192 7 7"$T2 "13


15/38

"22+22+1T 7 T8+ +9I1"/ TI"/ $(T T8"T TI+3

T8+ $"2+6

II. T8+ 81"'/+ $(T 7 "PP+"/2 +1+(2/-

$1$/(3+3 T8"T "1 I//+9"/ 2+"$8 )"2 $13($T+3 I12. "TI//"1A2 +2I3+1$+, I1 3I2+9"3 7 T8+

+M$(/P"T- 7I13I192 7 T8+ TI"/ $(T T8"T 2.

"TI//"1 8"3 */(1T"I/- "//)+3 P+TITI1+2

+1T- I1T 8+ 8(2+.:@

!he -ssues

The issues in this case may be synthesi%ed, thus GaH whether or

not respondent Paulina atillano consented to the petitionersAentry into her house, as well as to the taking of the clothes, shoes

and pieces of Cewelry owned by her and her family6 GbH whether or

not the petitioners are liable for damages to the respondents6

and, GcH if so, the e&tent of the petitionersA liability to the

respondents.

$onsidering that the assignments of errors are interrelated, this

$ourt shall delve into and resolve them simultaneously.

!he ourt1s Ruling

The petition has no merit.

"dmittedly, the issues in the case at bar are factual. (nder ule

45 of the ules of $ourt, only uestions of law may be raised in

this $ourt in a petition for review on certiorari. 8owever, the rule

admits of some e&ceptions, such as a case where the ndings offacts of the trial court are substantially di!erent from those of the

appellate court, and the resolution of such issues are

determinative of the outcome of the petition.?0


16/38


17/38

of petitioner /uiAs warning that she might be harmed, respondent

Paulina atillano was forced to accompany the petitioner and his

cohorts to the second Loor of their house. The foregoing was

testied to by respondent Paulina atillano, thus

"TT-. 2("I

D rs. atillano, do you know the person of +li /ui#

" I know him.

D )hy do you know +li /ui#

" 'ecause he is from 'ansalan.

D n 1ovember =, :@>>, where were you, rs. atillano#

" I was in our house.

D "t about E00 oAclock in the afternoon of 1ovember =,

:@>>, did you notice any unusual incident that took place in

your house#

" There was.

D )hat incident was that, rs. atillano#

" There were ve G5H persons who suddenly went inside our

house.

D )here did they enter#

" They entered through the kitchen.

D 1ow, where were you when they entered suddenly in your

house#

" I was in our sala.


18/38

D 1ow, what did you do when you saw these ve G5H persons

entered GsicH your house#

" I was afraid.

D "side from fear, what did you do#

" ne of them suddenly said, rs., we are authorities.

"TT-. T"1

1ot responsive to the uestion, -our 8onor.

"TT-. 2("I

2he is responding the uestion because my uestion is,

"side from fear, what did you do# and according to this

witness, she was not able to do anything because one of

those who enteredGnot continuedH

$(T

I think the answer is not responsive. Kust reform the

uestion.

"TT-. 2("I

D )hat did these persons do when they entered your house#

" ne of them said, rs., we are authorities. )e are here to

get something from your house.

D 3o you know who this person was, this person who was

talking that they were persons in authority#

" That person when he rst went to our house, I do not know

him yet, but I know GsicH him later to be /eo oCas.


19/38

D )hy do you know him later to be /eo oCas#

" )hen the case was already being tried, he introduced

himself as /eo oCas.

D )hat was /eo oCas wearing at that time#

" 8e was in civilian clothes.

D "side from /eo oCas, who were the other persons who

entered your house#

" "side from the two G?H persons whom I do not know, my

nephew was also with them in the name of +linito /ariosa.

D )ho else, rs. atillano#

" +li /ui.

"TT-. 2("I

"t least, may we ask, -our 8onor, that the word

manghilabot be incorporated.

$(T

2o, the word is interfering or meddling. -ou record the

word manghilabot.

"TT-. 2("I

D )hen you said manghilabot, what do you mean, rs.

atillano#

" -es, because they said that they are taking some of our

things and I said why are they doing that GmanghilabotH#


20/38

D )hen you said those remarks, what else happened#

" It was +li /ui who answered, rs., do not answer anymore

because something might happen. G'asig madisgrasyaH.

"TT-. 2("I

adisgrasya, -our 8onor, is more than something.

"TT-. 2("I

D )hen you heard those words from +li /ui, what else

transpired#

" 8e said, "ll right, where is your aparador because we are

getting something. "nd I even told him that we should wait

for my husband but they did not agree because they said

they are in a hurry.

D "nd after that, what else happened#

" I accompanied him upstairs.

D -ou accompanied him upstairs, who are you referring to

that you accompanied upstairs.

" +li /ui and his other two G?H companions.

D These two G?H companions whom you said you do not

know their names#

" -es, sir.??

"TT-. T"1


21/38

D 1ow, you said on 1ovember =, :@>>, ve G5H men

suddenly entered your house. )hen you said suddenly, will

you please describe how did they enter the house#

" They passed through the kitchen and suddenly appearedinside the house.

D -ou mean to say that they did not knock at the door#

" They did not.

D )ho rst entered the house among the ve G5H#

" )hat I rst saw was that they immediately converged inthe sala and whom I recogni%ed was +li /ui and my nephew

who was in handcu!s.

D )as your door opened at that time#

" It was closed but it was not locked. It can be kicked open.

D 'ut you can open it without kicking the door#

" -es, sir.

D 1ow, you said that you were afraid, why were you afraid#

" )hy would you not be afraid when they were armed#

D )ho were armed among the ve G5H#

" "ll of them e&cept the one who was in handcu!s.

D -ou are very sure of that#

" I am very sure.?E


22/38

espondent Paulina atillano, likewise, testied that petitioner /ui

and his cohorts took her personal things, and those of her

familyAs, from the second Loor of the house

D 1ow, while you and +li /ui with two G?H other companionswere upstairs, what happened upstairs#

" (pon reaching upstairs, they immediately rolled the two

G?H Loor mats, the pair of leather shoes, ? pairs of pants, two

G?H polo;shirts. They also let me open the chest and when it

was already open they rummaged through it and they got

my old 'ulova watch, my necklace, my ring and a coinsita,

old gold coins.

D )hen you said coinsita, what is coinsita#

" ld coins.

D "fter taking all of these things, what else happened#

" They went downstairs.?4

D 1ow, you mentioned in this aFdavit that several

properties were taken from your house, do you conrm that

there were two G?H polo;shirts that were taken#

" -es.

D "nd there were also two G?H Loor mats#

" -es, that is true.

D ne G:H 'ulova wristwatch#

" -es.


23/38

D ne G:H necklace#

" -es.

D Two G?H pairs of lady GsicH shoes#

" -es.

D Two G?H pairs of pants#

" -es.

D ne G:H ring#

" -es.

D )ho owns these two G?H pairs of ladyAs GsicH shoes#

" That was mine.

D )hat were the color of the shoes#

" 'lack and dirty white Greferring to the color of the

rostrumH.

D )here did you buy that shoes#

" In 3avao $ity.

D )hat store in 3avao $ity#

" 1$$$.

D )hat particular date when you bought that shoes#

" I think it was in the month of 1ovember.

D :@>>#


24/38


25/38

" 1o, because I still have so many children.

D 2o, who owns these two G?H pants#

" "lso my children, +ulogio, Kr. and "llan.

D 1ow, +ulogio, Kr. where is GsicH he residing on 1ovember =,

:@>>#

" In our house.

D 8ow about these two G?H t;shirts#

" "lso owned by my children.

D "re you referring to "llan and 3anilo#

" They used to wear that.

D 8ow come that "llan has a polo;shirt in your house when

you said he was then residing in Tacloban#

"TT-. 2("I

ay we manifest, -our 8onor, that he was schooling in

Tacloban.

$(T

"ll right.

" They used to have a vacation during 3ecember and arch

and usually they left some of their clothes inside ouraparador.

D These polo shirts were still new#

" "lready used.


26/38

D 8ow about the pants#

" The other one is already used and the other one is new.

D 8ow about the Loor mats#

" That is mine.

D 1ow, you claimed that these clothes were taken from the

cabinet or aparador, is that correct#

" -es, that is true.

D Inside your aparador, how many pieces of clothes were

stored therein#

" any.

D $ould you say one G:H do%en#

" It cannot be counted.

D $ould you say three GEH do%ens#

" It is really full of dress.

D )ould you say it is more than three GEH do%ens#

" ore.

D "nd these more than three GEH do%ens consists of polo

shirts, t;shirts and pants#

" -es.

D "nd inspite GsicH the fact that there were more than three

GEH do%ens of clothes, pants, polo shirts and t;shirts only


27/38

these two G?H pants, two G?H polo shirts and two G?H t;shirts w

ere taken#

" nly those things because they only selected the ones

which were still usable the good ones.

D 1ow, you mentioned also in your aFdavit that the group

also searched your trunk#

" I was ordered to open the trunk.

D )ho particularly ordered you to open the trunk#

" +li /ui.

?5

The respondents immediately reported the matter to the Fce of

the 'arangay $aptain?=and led a complaint against petitioner

/ui and his cohorts.?

3espite being mauled by +li /ui and drowned in a toilet bowl,

accused denied having anything to do with the lost money of


28/38

the complainant. /ater, he was turned over to the police for

investigation and there without a!ording accused with his

right to counsel, he was interrogated orally and was forced

to admit that out of the money he stole, he bought items

which the police later recovered at 'ansalan. They alsoreturned the accused to the complainantAs establishment

and forced to do re;enactment of the act of robbery, without

accused again a!orded the right to counsel. Pictures were

taken during the re;enactment while accused was

handcu!ed, as shown in the pictures taken by the police.

7inally, the accused was forced to admit and sign his

e&traCudicial statement G+&hibit "H, no longer able to bearthe pain of the mauling to him by +li /ui, who has the

temerity of maltreating the accused even in the presence of

the guards in the Cail and seriously threatening accused to

admit ownership of the recovered items at 'ansalan and at

1ew atina, 2I, 3avao $ity, otherwise he will be salvaged,

along with the serious threatening words of accusedAs

companion in the Cail, that if he will refuse to sign his alleged

confession, he will be salvaged as directed by +li /ui with the

police.

Indeed, in the records, it can be deduced with suFcient

basis, that +li /ui seems to have an open hand in the

prosecution of accused. 8e was the one who called the

police to arrest him, even without a warrant of arrest. 'efore

his statement was obtained, policeman relied on him in the

investigation and the ling of proper charges against

accused. They rode in a car of +li /ui, in taking accused fromthe etrodiscom to the establishment of complainant during

the re;enactment in going to 'ansalan, to recover the items

allegedly bought by accused out of the money allegedly

stolen6 all of these incidents shows GsicH QthatR the police

despite Custication, that they do not have enough facilities


29/38

GsicH, QhadR gone astray in conducting an impartial

investigation, by submitting to any possible indiscretion of +li

/ui of making the scale of Custice bend in his favor, by

manifesting control over the police power of investigation

highly and seriously pre;Cudicial to the rights, and interests ofthe accused.?>

If petitioner /ui was so bra%en as to have mauled /ariosa in the

presence of police authorities, he would not have cared a whit in

barging into the respondentsA house with petitioner oCas, a

policeman of 3avao $ity, and his cohorts, and divesting the

respondents of their belongings. The petitioners and their cohorts

wanted to insure that their caper would succeed. 8ence, they didnot coordinate with the 'ansalan Police 2tation when they went to

the respondentsA house with their intention to divest them of their

belongings.

Petitioner oCasA reliance on ission rder 1o. 7;";004;@>

issued to him by 2ergeant "lberto 9enise is misplaced. It bears

stressing that the petitioner was merely tasked in the said order

to follow up a theft case within the area of responsibility of the

etrodiscom, 3avao $ity. The petitioner was not authori%ed,

under the said order, to commit or tolerate the commission of a

crime, such as violation of domicile as dened in "rticle :?> of

the evised Penal $ode, viz

"T. :?>. *iolation of domicileS The penalty of prision

correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon

any public oFcer or employee who, not being authori%ed by

Cudicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of theowner thereof, search papers or other e!ects found therein

without the previous consent of such owner, or, having

surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being reuired to

leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.


30/38


31/38

neighbors was rendered missing.E0If the petitioner, a

businessman for ten years or so, had no ualms in torturing

/ariosa under the very noses of police oFcers, he would, likewise,

have no ualms about intimidating respondent Paulina atillano

and divesting her of her personal belongings. It must be stressedthat petitioner /ui was in the company of petitioner oCas, a police

oFcer from 3avao $ity.

2econd. The petitioners and their cohorts had no foreknowledge

that the occupants of the respondentsA house were all women.

They must have believed that there were male occupants6 hence,

barged into the house with drawn guns.

Third. "s shown clearly in respondent Paulina atillanoAs sworn

statement before the 'ansalan Police 2tation, she declared that

the petitioners were armed with guns. They threatened her life

and, without any search warrant therefor, divested her and her

family of their personal belongings against their will.E:

7ourth. In her complaint before the Fce of the 'arangay

$aptain, respondent Paulina atillano declared that the

petitioners entered their house, that petitioner /ui pointed a gunat her, and that the petitioners and their cohorts searched the

house and carted away their personal belongings.E?That the

report made before the 'arangay $aptain and petitioner Paulina

atillanoAs sworn statement are not as complete as her testimony

before the trial court is understandable. "Fdavits are usually

taken e& parte and are almost always incomplete and inaccurate,

but they do not detract from the credibility of the witness.EE"n

entry in the police blotter is usually incomplete and inaccurate forwant of suggestions or inuiries, without the aid of which the

victim may be unable to recall the connected collateral

circumstances necessary for the correction of the rst suggestion

of his memory, and for his accurate recollection of all that pertain


32/38

to the subCect.E4The same principle applies to entries in the

barangay blotter.

7ifth. "s correctly held by the trial court, the ndings of

administrative and uasi;administrative agencies are not bindingon the courts. In the present case, the Fce of the Provincial

Prosecutor, as aFrmed by the 2ecretary of Kustice,E5found no

probable cause for robbery against the petitioners because they

had no intent to rob, but merely to recover the properties from

the house of the respondents which petitioner /ui perceived to

have been acuired by /ariosa with money stolen from his uncle,

'en.E=The decision of the 1ational Police $ommission absolving

petitioner oCas of grave misconduct was anchored on its ndingthat the petitioner was merely performing his duty as ordered by

his superior oFcer.E> because the crime of violation

of domicile was committed in 'ansalan and not in 3avao $ity.E>In

contrast, the $ommission on 8uman ights recommended the

indictment of petitioner /ui for unlawful arrest and of petitioner

oCas for violation of domicile.E@

2i&th. (nder "rticles :@ and E?, in relation to "rticle ?: of the

1ew $ivil $ode, the dismissal of the complaint against the

petitioners by the Provincial and $ity Prosecutors, the unicipal

Trial $ourt and the 1ational Police $ommission are of no relevance

to the civil complaint for damages led by the respondents

against the petitioners. The action of the respondents against the

petitioners may still proceed despite the dismissal of the criminal

and administrative actions against them.

The petitionersA contention that respondent Paulina atillano

waived her right against unreasonable search and sei%ure

deserves scant consideration. (nder "rticle III, 2ection ? of the

$onstitution, the right of the people to be secure in their persons,


33/38

houses, papers and e!ects against unreasonable searches and

sei%ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be

inviolable. This provision protects not only those who appear to

be innocent but also those who appear to be guilty, who must

nevertheless be presumed innocent until the contrary isproved.40The general rule is that a search and sei%ure must be

carried through or with Cudicial warrant6 otherwise, such a search

and sei%ure becomes unconstitutional within the conte&t of the

constitutional provision4:because a warrantless search is in

derogation of a constitutional right. Peace oFcers who e!ect a

warrantless search cannot invoke regularity in the performance of

oFcial functions.4?

The right against unreasonable searches and sei%ures is a

personal right which may be waived e&pressly or impliedly. 'ut a

waiver by implication cannot be presumed.4EThere must be clear

and convincing evidence of an actual intention to relinuish the

right to constitute a waiver of a constitutional right. There must

be proof of the following GaH that the right e&ists6 GbH that the

person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of

the e&istence of such right6 and, GcH that the said person had an

actual intention to relinuish the right.44The waiver must be

made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The $ourt indulges

every reasonable presumption against any waiver of fundamental

constitutional rights.45The fact that the aggrieved person did not

obCect to the entry into her house by the police oFcers does not

amount to a permission to make a search therein.4=" peaceful

submission to search and sei%ure is not a consent or an invitation

thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the

supremacy of the law.4

Lui v Matillano

Documents

Transcript of Lui v Matillano