ANTONIO SANCHEZ (PETITIONER)

VS.
HARRIET DEMETRIOU ET AL (RESPONDENTS)
GR NO. 111771-77 NOVEMBER 9, 1993
CRUZ, J.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

WITH PRAYER FOR TRO/WRIT OF INJUNCTION.

1. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate charges

against several persons including Sanchez in connection with the rape-slay case of Mary
Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez
2. State Prosecutors of the DOJ conducted a prelim investigation. Sanchez was not present
but was represented by atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.
3. 3 days later, PNP commander Rex PIad issued an invitation to the petitioner requesting
him to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim in Canlubang Laguna. It was served
on Sanchez the next day and he was immediately taken to the said camp
4. That same day Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno and SPO3 Malabanan
who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the case. He was then
placed on arrest status and taken to the DOJ of Manila.
5. Prosecutors conducted an inquest upon his arrival. He was represented by Atty. Salvador
Panelo.
6. After said hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez, issued by Judge Lanzanas of
RTC Manila. He was taken to the CIS detention center
7. Prosecutors filed with the RTC of Calamba Laguna 7 infos charging Sanchez, Luis Corcolon,
Rogelio Corcolon, Pepito Kawi, Baldwin Brion, Jr., Georg Medialdea and Zoilo Ama with rape
and killing of Sarmenta.
8. Judge Sto. Domingo issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused including the
petitioner in connection with the said crime.
9. Sec of Justice expressed his concern that the trial might result in miscarriage of justice
because of the tense and partisan atmosphere in Laguna. SC ordered the transfer of the
venue to Pasig, where they were raffled to Demetriou.
10.The informations were amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez.
11.Sanchez filed a motion to quash, but was denied hence this petition for certiorari and
prohibition w/ prayer for a TRO/writ of injunction.
ISSUE:
1) Was he denied the right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation?
2) Did the Ombudsman have exclusive jurisdiction over the case?
3) Was his warrantless arrest illegal? If so, did the court acquire jurisdiction over him?
4) Was he charged with 7 homicides arising from the death of only 2 persons?
5) Were the informations discriminatory when it didnt include ALqueza and Lavadia?
6) As a public officer, can he be tried for the offense only by the Sandiganbayan?
1. NO.
-

His own lawyer, Brion manifested that his client, Sanchez was waiving the
presentation of counter-affidavit during the Preliminary investigation.
Brion again said that his client is waiving the submission of counter-affidavit when
they were presented the statements of Centeno and Malabanan.
Though Sanchez was arguing that he had a different counsel during the inquest, the
court held that he didnt disown Panelo as his counsel. Anyway, the accused may
renounce the right to be present at the preliminary investigation and he can also
waive the right to present counter-affidavits or any other evidence in his defense
The absence of a prelim investigation does not impair the validity of the information
or otherwise render the same defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of
the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the information.

If no PI has been held, or it is flawed, the trial court may, on motion of the accused,
order an investigation or reinvestigation and hold the proceedings in abeyance.
Demetrious saw no reason or need for such step. SC shall defer to her judgment

2. NO.
-

Petitioner invoked Deloso v. Domingo and argued that the proceedings conducted
by the DOJ were null and void because it had no jurisdiction over the case.
Ombudsman was vested with the power to conduct investigation of all cases
involving public officers like him.
- SC: in Aquinaldo v. Domagas, the court held that the authority is not an exclusive
authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense
charged.
- Petitioner also argued that the information needed the approval of the ombudsman.
- SC: not necessary. Deloso v. Domingo: ombudsman has the authority to investigate
charges of illegal or omissions on the part of any public official. But this is not an
exclusive authority. The non-involvement of the ombudsman does not have any
adverse effects upon the authority of the prosecutors to file and prosecute the info
or amended info.
- In fact, DOJ, in connection with the charge of sedition, PCGG in ill gotten wealth
cases may conduct the investigation
3. YES and YES
- Arrest is defined under sec. 1 of Rule 113 as the taking of a person into custody in
order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Under
sec. 2 of the same rule an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to
be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the person making the arrest.
application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a
formal declaration of arrest is not, required. It is not enough that there be an intent
on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent on the part of the
others to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.
- Sanchez was taken to Camp Vicente by virtue of a letter-investigation issued by PNP
commander Piad requiring him to appear at the said camp
- Babst v. NIB: an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which
the person invited may heed or refuse at this pleasure, is not illegal or
constitutionally objectionable. Under different circumstances it assumes a different
appearance. Where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed
predominantly of ranking military officers issued at a time when the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus has not been entirely lifted, and
the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can be
easily taken not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it purports to be,
but as an authoritative comment which one can only defy at his peril.
In this case, the invitation came from a high-ranking military official and the
investigation of Sanchez was to be made at a military camp. It was obviously a
command or an order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly be expected to
defy.
- He was placed on arrest status eventually at Camp Vicente Lim and he had been
arrested
- SC agreed that his arrest didnt come under Sec. 5, rule 113 of the ROC
Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense
b. When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has no personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escapes from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

The arresting officers were not present when the petitioner allegedly participated in
the killing of Allan Gomez and the Rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta. Also the

4. NO.
-

5. NO.
6. NO.
-

crime was alleged to have been committed 46 days before the date of the arrest, it
cannot be said that the offense had in fact just been committed.
The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtlessly illegal, but the RTC
lawfully acquired jurisdiction over him by virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on
Aug. 26, 1993. It was belated but nonetheless legal.
Even if we assume that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still
lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. If the accused objects
to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the info but
ONLY ON THAT GROUND. The accused in this case raised other grounds in the
motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to have submitted
his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
The issuance of the correspondent warrant of arrest, against one who was invalidly
detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be
released because of such defect. Release of the petitioner for the reason that the
first warrant of arrest was invalid will be a futile act as it will be followed by his
immediate re-arrest pursuant to the new and valid warrant.
Sanchez interpreted it wrongly. Rape was complexed with homicide, therefore there
will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed.
Homicide loses its character as an independent offense but now qualifies the crime
of rape. Rape with homicide is included in the exceptions provided by sec. 13 of
Rule 110 (re: duplicity of offense).
Each of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta
and later killing her instead of merely assisting Sanchez in raping and then slaying
her. The seven rapes were committed in succession by the seven accused
culminating in the slaying of Sarmenta.
It is absurd to think that they were killed seven times. But the infos do not suggest
this.
Cant file an information against a person when the prosecutor didnt find probable
cause to file a case against said person
It is preposterous to argue that because no charges have been filed against Alqueza
and Lavadia, the charges against him and his co-accused should also be dropped.
SB has exclusive original jurisdiction over: 1) violations of the anti-graft and corrupt
practices act (RA 3019), and Corrupt practices Act RA 1379 and Chapter II sec. 2
Title VII of the RPC; 2) offenses or felonies committed by public officers and
employees in relation to their office
Rape with homicide does not deal with graft and corruption nor it is an offense
committed in relation to the office of Sanchez.
Montilla v. Hilario: public office is not of the essence of murder. Taking of human life
is either murder or homicide whether done by a private citizen or public servant,
and the penalty is the same. Abuse of office is not an element of homicide and even
as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises not from the allegations but
on the proof that the manner of the commission of the crime indeed abused his
office.
In this case the offense can stand independently of the office. there were no
allegations that the crime of rape with homicide imputed to him was connected with
the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor or that there is an intimate
connection between the offense and his office.

Held: Petition DISMISSED. Demetriou directed to continue with the trial of crim cases and to
decide them with deliberate dispatch.