CRIM PRO Digest: Artillero v. Casimiro, et.al. (G.R. No. 190569)

Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on Rule 112:  Preliminary Investigation, Procedure

G. R. No. 190569               April 24, 2012

P/INSP. Ariel S. ARTILLERO, Petitioner,

vs. 

ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman; BERNABE D. DUSABAN, Provincial Prosecutor, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of IloIlo; EDITO AGUILLON, Brgy. Capt., Brgy. Lanjagan, Ajuy, IloIlo, Respondents.

SERENO, J.:

FACTS:

This case pertains to the criminal charge filed by Private Inspector Ariel S. Artillery (petitioner) against Barangay Captain Edito Aguillon (respondent) for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by 

Republic Act No. 8249 AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606

Private Inspector Ariel S. Artillery, Chief of Police of the Municipal Station of the Philippine National Police in Ajuy, Iloilo received information that successive gun fire had been heard in BARANGAY Lanjagan, Ajuy IloIlo. Thus, Police Inspector, Idel Hermoso and Police Officer (SPO1), Arial Lanaque, immediately went to the area to investigate. They spotted two persons walking towards them, wobbling and visibly drunk. One of them, Aguillon, was openly carrying a rifle, and that it's barrel touched the concrete road at times. Petitioner and Hermoso disarmed Aguillon. The rifle was a Caliber 5.56 M16 with Serial No. 101365 and with 20 live ammunitions in it's magazine. According to petitioner and Hermoso, although Aguillon was able to present his Firearm License Card, he was not able to present a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR). Petitioner arrested Aguillon and his companion.

On August 2008, petitioner and Hermoso executed a Joint Affidavit alleging the foregoing facts in support of the filing of a case for illegal possession of firearm against Aguillon. Petitioner also endorsed the filing of a Complaint against Aguillon through a letter sent to the Provincial Prosecutor. For his part, Aguillon executed an Affidavit swearing that the petitioner had unlawfully arrested and detained him for illegal possession of firearm, although it was legally obtained as evidenced by the licensed surrendered to the petitioner. Aguillon further claims that he was duly authorized by law to carry his firearms within his barangay to monitor peace and order therein. According to the petitioner, he never received a copy of the Counter-Affidavit and was thus unable to give the necessary reply.

On February 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman approved the recommendation to dismiss the case for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner claimed that he never received a copy of this Resolution. Thereafter, Provincial Prosecutor Bernabe D. Dusaban forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman the 10 September 2008 Resolution recommending the approval thereof. In a Resolution dated February 17, 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman, through Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Orlando C. Casimiro, approved the recommendation of Provincial Prosecutor Dusaban to dismiss the case. It ruled that the evidence on record proved that the Aguillon did not commit the crime of illegal possession of firearm since he has a license for his rifle.

The petitioner claimed that he never received a copy of the Resolution either. On June 22 2009, petitioner filed for a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the February 17, 2009 Resolution, but it was denied through an Order dated July 23, 2009. Thus, on December 8, 2009, he filed a Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

According to the petitioner, he was denied of his right to due process when he was not given a copy of Aguillon's Couner-Affidavit, Resolution filed by the Assistant Prosecutor dated September 2008, an the Resolution filed by the Office of the Ombudsman dated February 2009.

Petitioner also argued that the public respondent act of dismissing the criminal Complaint against Aguillon, based solely on insufficiency of evidencce, was contrary to the provisions of PD 1866 and it's Implementing Rules and Regulations. He, thus, claimed that the assailed Resolutions were issued "contrary to law, and/or jurisprudence and with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner was denied due process when he was not given a copy of the the Counter-Affidavit, Resolution by the Assistant Prosecutor, and the Resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman. - NO.

Whether or not petitioner Aguillon is guilty of illegal possession of firearm. - NO.

HELD:

Petitioners right to due process was not violated. Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution, mandates that no person shall be held liable for a criminal offense without due process of law. It further provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of he nature and cause of the accusation against him. This is a right that cannot be invoked by petitioner, because he is not the accused in this case. It has been said time and again that a preliminary investigation is not a proper trial or any part thereof but is merely preparatory thereto, its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty thereof. The right to such investigation is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. It is therefore clear that because a preliminary investigation is not a proper trial, the rights of the parties therein depend on the rights granted to them by law and these cannot be based on whatevrights they believe they are entitled to or those that may be derived from the phase "due process of law."

A complainant in a preliminary investigation does not have a vested right to file a Reply. This right should be granted to him by law. There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the complainant the right there or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to file a Reply to the accused's counter-affidavit. To illustrate the non-mandatory nature of filing a Reply in Preliminary Investigations, Section 3 (d) of Rule 112 gives the prosecutor, in certain instances, the right to resolve the Compaint eent without a counter-affidavit.

Even though petitioner was indeed entitled to receive a opy of the Counter-Affidavit filed by Aguillon, whatever procedural defects this case suffered from in it's initial stages were cured when the former filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In fact, all of the supposed defense of petitioner in this case have already been raised in his Motion for Reconsideration and adequately considered and acted upon by the Office of the Ombudsman. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.

"What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice bu the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard." We have said that where a party has been given a chance to be heard with respect to the latter's motion for reconsideration there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process.

CONCLUSION:

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSED the Petition since there is no law that penalizes a local chief executive for imbibing liquor while carrying his firearm. Neither is there any law that restricts the kind of firearms that punong barangays may carry in the performance of their peace and order functions. The Resolution filed by the Provincial Prosecutor, as well as the Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman were AFFIRMED.

A copy of the Decision was served on the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for whatever appropriate action they may deem warranted by the statements in this Decision regarding the adequacy of laws governing the carrying of firearms by local chief executives.

SOURCE:

Artillery v. Camisiro G.R. No. 190569. (2012, April 25). LawPhil.net. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_190569_2012.html