G.R. Nos.

111771-77 November 9, 1993

CRUZ, J.:
FACTS:
On July 28, 1993, the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission
requested the filing of appropriate charges against several persons,
including the petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen
Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. Acting on this request, the
Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a
preliminary investigation on August 9, 1993. Petitioner Sanchez was not
present but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr.
On August 12, 1993, 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 in the
morning of August 13,1993, and he was immediately taken to the said
camp. At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively
identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan, who
both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-
slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then
placed on "arrest status" and taken to the Department of Justice in
Manila. The respondent prosecutors immediately conducted an inquest
upon his arrival, with Atty. Salvador Panelo as his counsel. After the
hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez. This warrant was
issued on August 13, 1993, by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in connection with Criminal Cases Nos.
93-124634 to 93-124637 for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 1,
of R.A. No. 6713. Sanchez was forthwith taken to the CIS Detention
Center, Camp Crame, where he remains confined. On August 16, 1993,
the respondent prosecutors filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Calamba, Laguna, seven informations charging Antonio L. Sanchez,
Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, Pepito Kawit, Baldwin Brion, Jr.,
George Medialdea and Zoilo Ama with the rape and killing of Mary
Eileen Sarmenta. On August 26, 1993, Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo
of that court issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused, including
the petitioner, in connection with the said crime. The respondent
Secretary of Justice subsequently expressed his apprehension that the
trial of the said cases might result in a miscarriage of justice because of
the tense and partisan atmosphere in Laguna in favor of the petitioner
and the relationship of an employee, in the trial court with one of the
accused. This Court thereupon ordered the transfer of the venue of the
seven cases to Pasig, Metro Manila, where they were raffled to
respondent Judge Harriet Demetriou. On September 10, 1993, the seven
information were amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez as an
aggravating circumstance. On that same date, the petitioner filed a
motion to quash the informations substantially on the grounds now
raised in this petition. On September 13, 1993, after oral arguments, the
respondent judge denied the motion. Sanchez then filed with this Court
the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a
temporary restraining order/writ of injunction. The petitioner argues
that the seven information filed against him should be quashed because:
1) he was denied the right to present evidence at the preliminary
investigation; 2) only the Ombudsman had the competence to conduct
the investigation; 3) his warrantless arrest is illegal and the court has
therefore not acquired jurisdiction over him, 4) he is being charged with
seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons; 5) the
information are discriminatory because they do not include Teofilo
Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia; and 6) as a public officer, he can be tried
for the offense only by the Sandiganbayan. The respondents submitted
a Comment on the petition, to which we required a Reply from the
petitioner within a non-extendible period of five days. The Reply was
filed five days late. The Court may consider his non-compliance an
implied admission of the respondents' arguments or a loss of interest in
prosecuting his petition, which is a ground for its dismissal.
Nevertheless, we shall disregard this procedural lapse and proceed to
discuss his petition on the basis of the arguments before us.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a defect is present in the seven informations filed
against the petitioner and his co-defendants.
RULING:
The petitioner avers that the seven informations charging seven
separates are absurd because the two victims in these cases could not
have died seven times. But this argument was correctly refuted by the
Solicitor General in this wise: Where there are two or more offenders
who commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason
of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the special complex
crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of
rape with homicide as there are rapes committed. It is clearly provided
in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that: Sec. 13. Duplicity of offense. A
complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a simple punishment for
various offenses. Rape with homicide comes within the exception under
R.A. 2632 and R.A. 4111, amending the Revised Penal Code. The
petitioner and his six co-accused are not charged with only one rape
committed by him in conspiracy with the other six. Each one of the
seven accused is charged with having himself raped Sarmenta instead
of simply helping Sanchez in committing only one rape. The separate
informations filed against each of them allege that each of the seven
successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta
and aggravated by the killing of Allan Gomez by her seven attackers.
The separate rapes were committed in succession by the seven accused,
culminating in the slaying of Sarmenta. It is of course absurd to suggest
that Mary Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez were killed seven times,
but the informations do not make such a suggestion. It is the petitioner
who does so and is thus hoist by his own petard.

FRANCESS A. PILONEO
JD-1A