ALLADO and MENDOZA vs. HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, II G.R. No. 113630

G.R. No. 113630                                May 5, 1994

DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROBERTO L. MENDOZA
vs.
HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, Presiding Judge, Br. 62, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, and PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-CRIME COMMISSION

FACTS:

Petitioners, Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, were both implicated as the masterminds of the kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist.

An information for the said crime was filed against the petitioners primarily on the strength of a sworn statement by Escolastico Umbal, who admitted that he was among those who kidnapped and killed the victim upon the orders of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent judge, Roberto C. Diokno, ordered the arrest of the petitioners and no bail was recommended.

Petitioners, contending that their arrests was effected whimsically as there is no probable cause, questioned their arrests.

ISSUE:

Whether or not probable cause is present to warrant the order of arrest against the petitioners.

HELD:

No, probable cause do not exist to merit the order of arrest against the petitioners.

 For sure, the credibility of Umbal is badly battered. Certainly, his bare allegations, even if the State invokes its inherent right to prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending two lawyers to jail, or anybody for that matter. More importantly, the PACC operatives who applied for a warrant to search the dwellings of Santiago never implicated petitioners. In fact they claimed that according to Umbal, it was Santiago, and not petitioners, who masterminded the whole affair. While there may be bits of evidence against petitioners' co-accused, i.e., referring to those seized from the dwellings of Santiago, these do not in the least prove petitioners' complicity in the crime charged. Based on the evidence thus far submitted there is nothing indeed, much less is there probable cause, to incriminate petitioners. For them to stand trial and be deprived in the meantime of their liberty, however brief, the law appropriately exacts much more to sustain a warrant for their arrest — facts and circumstances strong enough in themselves to support the belief that they are guilty of a crime that in fact happened. Quite obviously, this has not been met.