ON MAY 5, 2020, teacher Ronnel Mas posted on Twitter: “I will give 50 million reward kung sino makakapatay kay Duterte.”
Six days later he was arrested and detained by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) without the benefit of a warrant of arrest signed by a judge.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) ruled that the arrest was invalid. Warrantless arrests are allowed only if “the offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.”
Considering that six days had lapsed since the social media posting, it would be foolhardy for the NBI to claim that an offense “has just been committed.”
But the DOJ added that the defect in Mas’ warrantless arrest was “cured” when he admitted to the media that he personally posted the provocative text in his social media account.
The DOJ cites the case of People vs. Taboga, decided by the Supreme Court in February 2002. In that case the Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for homicide based on a taped confession given by the accused to a radio reporter. The confession was admitted into evidence despite the objection that it was given by the accused without the presence of his lawyer.
The DOJ may even cite the case of People vs. Quitola, decided by the Supreme Court in July 2016. As in Taboga, the Court held that the confession that was given by the accused to a media personality was admissible evidence.
The rationale behind these rulings is that the Bill of Rights does not concern itself with relations between private individuals. A member of the press is one such private individual. The prohibitions in the Constitution are primarily addressed to the State and its agents.
However, the obvious must be pointed out, i.e., that in those previous cases, the media confessions were presented as part of prosecution evidence during trial to prove the guilt of the accused – not to justify his warrantless arrest.
A trial in a criminal case happens after the accused is arrested – with or without a warrant of arrest.
An “inquest,” on the other hand, precedes trial. It does not happen in all criminal cases. It becomes necessary only when a person is arrested without a warrant of arrest.
In the 2007 case of Ladlad vs. Velasco, the Supreme Court explained that the initial duty of the inquest officer is to determine if the arrest of the detained person was a valid warrantless arrest.
If the arrest is found invalid, as in the case of Ronnel Mas, the inquest officer must recommend the release of the person arrested or detained. This is set forth in Section 9 of DOJ Circular No. 61.
But that does not mean the end of the case. The DOJ will not dismiss the complaint if the evidence submitted by law enforcement agents justify further proceedings against the suspect. It will then proceed to conduct regular preliminary investigation.
The suspect will still be held to account. The ensuing preliminary investigation affords him the opportunity to explain himself or present some legal defense that may warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
In short, a mountain of evidence that includes a media confession cannot cure an illegal arrest. That piece of evidence will be relevant in a preliminary investigation that will ultimately lead to trial in court.
The DOJ, we fear, put the cart before the horse in this case.
Why is it important to point out the distinctions?
Our Constitution defines basic freedoms. No person, no matter his station in life, may be deprived of liberty without due process of law. One minute spent in illegal detention violates the Constitution. All agents of the State have sworn fealty to the fundamental law of the land.
These are not mundane matters of procedure. So sacrosanct are fundamental rights that their violations have been legislated into specific crimes under the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, a public officer who detains a person without legal grounds is liable for arbitrary detention. A public officer who enters the dwelling of another in order to search for effects without the consent of the owner is liable for violation of domicile.
The public must be mindful of incremental changes that impinge upon fundamental rights so jealously guarded by the Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial branch of government to check on executive action that disregards those rights.
Justice Arturo Brion likened small, gradual and incremental changes to slowly boiling the frog using minimal heat. People will not notice.
But over time, these mini assaults upon the Constitution will slowly and surely result in the subjugation of the independent institutions that were established to ensure balance and stability in a democratic state./PN
