People of the Philippines vs. Jan Michael Tan and Archie Tan

A successor judge may reconsider and recall an interlocutory order of the predecessor finding no probable cause, and may issue warrants of arrest upon a finding of probable cause based on circumstantial evidence, because probable cause requires only facts sufficient to lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that a crime was committed and that the accused likely committed it, not absolute certainty or clear and convincing evidence of guilt.

Francisco “Bobby” Tan, a businessman, lived in a compound in Molo, Iloilo City with his wife Cynthia Marie (Cindy), their six children, and his two older illegitimate sons by another woman, respondents Archie and Jan Michael (Jan-Jan), whom Cindy treated as stepsons. The household also included relatives, servants, and frequent guests. The controversy concerns the criminal proceedings initiated after the deaths of Bobby, Cindy, and Katherine, specifically the judicial determination of probable cause and the issuance of warrants of arrest against Archie and Jan-Jan.

The facts are based on the affidavits of the witnesses adduced at the preliminary investigation of the case. Francisco “Bobby” Tan, a businessman, lived with his family and a large household in a compound on M.H. del Pilar St., Molo, Iloilo City. His immediate family consisted of his wife, Cynthia Marie (Cindy), and their six children, namely Raffy, Kristine, Katrina, Karen, Katherine, and Kathleen. Bobby’s two older but illegitimate sons by another woman, respondents Archie and Jan Michael (Jan-Jan), also lived with him, and Cindy treated them as stepsons. The household also included Bobby’s aunt Conchita Tan, his cousin Shirley Young, Shirley’s daughter Sheryl, eight servants, and Vini Gulmatico, a former family security guard who was transferred to another post on January 2, 2006 after being caught asleep on the job. The family had a frequent guest, Mike Zayco, Cindy’s brother, and his sidekick Miguel Sola.

At around 6:00 p.m. on January 8, 2006, Bobby and Raffy, Bobby’s eldest son by Cindy, left the house for a cockfight. About that time, Archie drove out with the rest of the family to go to mass. They returned around 7:10 p.m. and had dinner, joined by Conchita, Shirley, and Sheryl. At about 7:45 p.m., Bobby and Raffy returned from the cockfight but did not join the dinner, having already eaten elsewhere; Bobby went up directly to the master’s bedroom on the second floor. After dinner, all members of the family went to their respective rooms. Cindy joined her husband in the master’s bedroom with their second to the youngest, Katherine, and her nanny. Katrina, one of the daughters, went to the girls’ bedroom to study. Sheryl went to the master’s bedroom at around 8:10 p.m. to let Cindy try a new pair of jeans given to her by another cousin, then left for her bedroom. At around 8:35 p.m., Borj, a blind masseur, and an escort arrived for Bobby’s massage in his room. At around 8:55 p.m., Emelita Giray, the regular masseuse of Shirley and Sheryl, arrived with her husband. About 9:30 p.m., Kristine, Bobby’s second to the oldest, went to her parents’ room to get a bottle of shampoo and say goodnight. Borj and his escort left at around 9:53 p.m., followed about an hour later by Emelita and her husband.

Around 10:30 p.m., Archie went to the garage and took two pairs of gloves, still wrapped in plastic, from his car. Archie also picked up a pack of cigarettes that he had left earlier with their security guard, Ramel Lobreza, before going back upstairs. At around 10:45 p.m., Archie and Jan-Jan joined Raffy and their driver Julito Geronda in watching a DVD movie on Raffy’s laptop at the carport. Jan-Jan went back to his room at around 11:00 p.m., but Archie remained to finish his cigarette; he, too, left afterwards for his room to change. By 11:55 p.m., Raffy turned off the video. A few minutes later, or at 12:17 a.m. of the next day, January 9, 2006, while security guard Lobreza was making his inspection rounds of the compound, he noticed that the lights were still on in the rooms of Archie and Jan-Jan. According to Archie and Jan-Jan, they climbed down the high concrete fence of the compound at about 12:45 a.m. to go out; they took a cab to Calzada Bar, Camp Jefferson Club, and Caltex Starmart, and returned home at around 3:30 a.m.

Jan-Jan entered the house ahead of his brother. On reaching the door of his room at the end of the hallway, he noticed his stepsister Katherine, the second to the youngest, lying on the floor near the master’s bedroom. As Jan-Jan switched on the light in his room, he beheld her lying in a pool of blood. He quickly stepped into the master’s bedroom and saw his father, Bobby, lying on the bed with his chest drenched in blood. Almost simultaneously, Archie, who had come into the house after Jan-Jan, noticed that the door of his room, which he had locked earlier, was partly open. As he went in and switched on the light, he saw his stepmother Cindy lying in her blood near the wall below the air conditioner. He then heard Jan-Jan shouting that their father was dead. Archie immediately ran downstairs to call security guard Lobreza while Jan-Jan went around and awakened the rest of the family. Because Lobreza did not respond to shouts, Archie ran to his room to rouse him, told him what he had discovered, and then awakened the other house-helps. Archie phoned police officer Nelson Alacre, told him what had happened, and requested him to come immediately. Officer Alacre arrived after a few minutes with other officers; they questioned Archie and Jan-Jan and took urine samples from them, which tested negative for illegal drug use. Around 4:20 a.m., Officer Alacre rode with Archie in the latter’s Toyota Rav4 to the house of Col. John Tarrosa, a family friend; they then went to the house of Manolo Natal, Bobby’s cockfight llamador, before driving back to Bobby’s residence. Meanwhile, on hearing about the crime, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Regional Chief directed his own men to investigate the crime scene.

On the afternoon of January 11, 2006, two days after the remains of the victims were brought home for the wake, Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz supposedly asked Archie and Jan-Jan to sign a statement that the police had prepared. The lawyer did not let them read the document or explain its contents. They signed it on Atty. Jiz’s assurance that they would have the chance to read the statement later at the public prosecutor’s office and correct any mistakes before swearing to it. The complainants did not, however, present this statement during the preliminary investigation, nor did Archie and Jan-Jan swear to it before a public prosecutor. Another two days later, or on January 13, 2006, police officers from the Regional CIDG submitted their investigation report to the City Prosecutor’s Office of Iloilo City, pointing to Archie and Jan-Jan as principal suspects in the brutal killing of their parents and a young stepsister. On January 18, 2006, police officer Eldy Bebit of the CIDG filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor’s Office, accusing the two brothers of parricide and double murder. The parties submitted their affidavits and pieces of evidence at the preliminary investigation.

Rosalinda Garcia-Zayco, Cindy’s mother and court-appointed guardian ad litem of her minor grandchildren, opposed Archie and Jan-Jan’s petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ). She pointed out that the two had sufficient motive to commit the crimes: they openly showed disrespect toward their father, Bobby, and constantly had heated arguments with him; they nurtured ill feelings and resentment toward Cindy, their stepmother, because they were illegitimate children; and they never accepted the fact that Bobby married Cindy rather than their mother. The National Bureau of Investigation report classified the crimes as motivated by hatred. Cindy’s mother made capital of the absence of Archie’s and Jan-Jan’s fingerprints in any part of their own rooms, particularly the light switches and the doorknobs. She cited the Investigating Prosecutor’s theory that either of the accused used the wet red shirt hanging in Jan-Jan’s bathroom to erase all fingerprints at the crime scene, something that forensic science can justify. Moreover, while investigators were still examining the crime scene, Bobby’s aunt Conchita called a locksmith to force open Bobby’s safes in the master’s bedroom as well as in his office on De Leon Street. This fact came to the surface during the preliminary investigation of a complaint for robbery that Conchita filed against Cindy’s brother Mike Zayco, his sidekick Miguel Sola, Natividad Zayco, and police superintendent Gumban of the CIDG. The police surmised that Conchita brought this criminal action to divert attention from the murder case and from Archie and Jan-Jan. Nine days after the victims’ burial, Archie filed a petition for the settlement of Bobby and Cindy’s estate, nominating Conchita as administratrix of the estate. He filed an ex parte motion for her appointment as special administrator in the meantime without consulting his half-siblings, and the estate court granted the motion. Archie reportedly continued with his nightly bar hopping even during the wake of his father. Archie and Jan-Jan’s defense was alibi: they claimed that they were away when the crimes took place at the house. Based on Dr. Lebaquin’s forensic computation, however, the victims probably died at about midnight, more or less, and the two were still at home when the killings happened.

• Re-examination of Probable Cause: Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan presented for resolution whether the CA committed error in ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he re-examined his predecessor’s finding that no probable cause existed despite the absence of new evidence in the case.
• Finding of Probable Cause: Respondents presented for resolution whether the CA committed error in ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he found probable cause to issue warrants for their arrest.
• Alibi: Respondents claimed that they were away when the crimes took place at the house.

• Re-examination of Probable Cause: Whether the CA committed error in ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he re-examined his predecessor’s finding that no probable cause existed against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan despite the absence of new evidence in the case.
• Finding of Probable Cause: Whether the CA committed error in ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he made a finding that there is probable cause to issue a warrant for the arrest of the two.

• Re-examination of Probable Cause: Yes. The CA committed error. The previous judge did not close the issue, had not acted on the motion to dismiss, and the DOJ denial plus the prosecutor’s amended resolution were new developments that the successor judge could consider; grave abuse of discretion implies irrational behavior, which was absent.
• Finding of Probable Cause: Yes. The CA committed error. Probable cause requires facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe a crime was committed and likely by the person sought; it does not require absolute certainty or clear and convincing evidence. Circumstantial evidence showing motive, opportunity, and suspicious circumstances sufficed.

• Re-examination of Probable Cause: The CA held that because the prosecution did not submit additional evidence before the RTC, Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion in re-examining and reversing his predecessor’s finding of lack of probable cause. The record showed, however, that Judge Aguilar did not altogether close the issue: he ignored the motion to dismiss and directed the City Prosecutor’s Office to submit additional evidence, indicating doubts about his finding. The DOJ affirmed the City Prosecutor’s decision to file charges. After Judge Justalero took over, he gave the prosecution additional time to comply with the January 12, 2007 order; on April 2, 2007, the prosecution filed its compliance together with its amended resolution. Thus, two new developments were before Judge Justalero: the DOJ’s denial of the appeal and finding of probable cause, and the local prosecutor’s submittal of additional arguments respecting probable cause. Grave abuse of discretion implies irrational behavior, which cannot be attributed to Judge Justalero, who re-examined an unsettled position in light of new developments. Moreover, because the previous judge had not acted on the motion to dismiss, the new judge still had full control of the interlocutory orders issued in the case, including the order finding insufficient evidence for warrants of arrest, and could reconsider and recall such order motu propio or on motion when circumstances warranted.
• Finding of Probable Cause: Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing guilt; as long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant. Here, the evidence against Archie and Jan-Jan was admittedly circumstantial. The prosecution showed motive—they had been at odds with their father and stepmother—and opportunity—they were still probably home when the crime took place. Archie took two pairs of new gloves from his car late that evening; Cindy was apparently executed inside Archie’s room; and the separate rooms of the two accused had been wiped clean even of their own fingerprints. A trial could yield more evidence favorable to either side after examination and cross-examination of witnesses. There was some rational basis for going ahead with judicial inquiry, and the CA’s position that the prosecution had nothing to go on with was not subscribed to.

• Probable Cause for Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest — Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt; the test is less stringent than that for establishing guilt, and a prima facie case against the accused suffices. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the RTC’s finding of probable cause based on circumstantial evidence.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion implies irrational behavior. It is not present where a successor judge re-examines an unsettled probable-cause determination in light of new developments, such as a DOJ resolution and an amended prosecutor’s resolution.
• Successor Judge’s Control Over Interlocutory Orders — A new judge has full control over interlocutory orders issued by a predecessor, including an order finding insufficient evidence to justify the issuance of warrants of arrest, and may reconsider and recall such order motu propio or on motion when circumstances warrant.
• Probable Cause May Rest on Circumstantial Evidence — Probable cause for arrest may be established by circumstantial evidence showing motive, opportunity, and suspicious circumstances, because a trial, unlike a preliminary investigation, may yield more evidence after direct and cross-examination. The Court applied this to the evidence against Archie and Jan-Jan.

• "Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested." — Defines probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest, the core standard applied to uphold the RTC’s order.
• "It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest." — States the quantum of evidence for probable cause and the prima facie standard for issuing arrest warrants.
• "Grave abuse of discretion implies an irrational behavior." — States the standard for grave abuse of discretion applied to reject the CA’s finding against Judge Justalero.
• "The new judge could reconsider and recall such order either motu propio or on motion when the circumstances warranted." — Articulates the successor judge’s control over interlocutory orders, the basis for allowing Judge Justalero to reverse the prior no-probable-cause order.

• Webb vs. De Leon, 317 Phil. 759, 779 (1995) — Cited by the Court for the definition of probable cause: facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested.
• People vs. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 880 (1998) — Cited for the rule that probable cause requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt.

• Section 13, Article VIII, Constitution — Cited in the Chief Justice’s certification that the conclusions in the Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion; it was not invoked in the substantive ruling on probable cause.

Antonio T. Carpio, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, and Mariano C. Del Castillo concurred.