9. Ladlad Vs. Velasco.docx

Valenton, Francis Angelo T.

Criminal Law 2

1S Ladlad vs. Velasco (G.R. Nos. 172070-72)

Facts: The petitioners are Vicente P. Ladlad, Nathanael S. Santiago, Randall B. Echanis, Rey Claro C. Casambre, etc. . The respondents are senior state prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco, senior state prosecutor Joselita C. Mendoza, senior state prosecutor Aileen Marie s. Gutierrez, etc. In the case at bar, after the Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 was executed, giving rise to a State of National Emergency, petitioner Beltran was then arrested and detained without warrant. Later that day, he then went through the inquest proceedings for the crime of inciting to sedition. Two days later, he went through the second inquest for the crime of rebellion. With respect to petitioners Maza and Ladlad, they were also arrested without warrant for the crimes of rebellion. All these petitioners contends that whether the inquest for the crime of rebellion is valid for the reason that they were arrested without warrant for a separate crime of inciting to sedition, and that there is no probable cause to indict them for the crime of rebellion.

Issue: Whether or not the inquest for the crime of rebellion and inciting to sedition is valid, and as to whether or not there is probable cause to indict them for rebellion.

Held: The Supreme Court said that the inquest proceeding against petitioner Beltran is void. They said that the inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been lawfully arrested without warrant. The arrest made against petitioner Beltran was not in accordance with the Rules of Court. Also, the affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officer said that the arrest without warrant was for the crime of inciting to sedition and not for rebellion. The Supreme Court added that the respondents overstepped their authority, thus rendering the inquest proceedings for Rebellion void.