LIGAYA SANTOS V. DOMINGO ORDA JR., 158236 (SEPTEMBER 1, 2004)

NATURE: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the CA decision which granted the petition for certiorari filed by Domingo Orda Jr. and nullifying the orders of the RTC Paranaque in the criminal case, People v. Ligaya Santos et al.

FACTS: On April 2, 2001, Francis Orda, the son of respondent Domingo Orda Jr., was shot to death in Paranaque City.

1. Gina Azarcon, an eyewitness in the crime, executed her sworn statement that she saw 3 male persons commit the crime and later identified two of the assailants as Rolly Tonion and Jhunrey Soriano. Thus, an Information for the crime of murder was filed against Tonion and Soriano and docketed as Criminal Case no. 01-0425

2. Ernesto Regala and his son, Dennis Regala, also came out as witnesses. On the day before Francis was shot to death (April 1, 2001), Ernesto saw petitioner Santos hand a gun to Tonion, saying “Gusto ko malinis ang trabaho at walang bulilyaso, baka makaligtas na naman si Orda.” For his part, Dennis alleged Tonion asked him to return the gun to Santos a few days after the incident. Santos also instructed him to monitor the activities of respondent

3. Based on the accounts of Ernesto and Dennis, an Information was filed against Santos and Edna Cortez. Upon further testimony of Azarcon, the information was amended to include petitioner Robert Bunda

4. Gina, Ernesto and Dennis later recanted their testimonies. In June 2002, DOJ issued a joint resolution directing the city prosecutor to cause the withdrawal of the Informations filed against the accused on the ground that testimonies of the witnesses were not credible because of their recantation.

5. On motion of the prosecution, the trial court issued an order allowing the withdrawal of the Informations against the accused and consequently recalling the warrants for their arrest

6. This prompted respondent Orda to elevate the matter to CA. CA nullified the trial court’s orders and declared that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the Informations without making an independent evaluation on the merits of the case

7. Petitioner argues that the trial court did not abuse its judicial discretion when it granted the motion of the prosecutor to withdraw the two Informations as ordered by DOJ. Petitioner avers that CA erred in relying on the ruling in Crespo v. Mogul since the case involves the withdrawal of the Informations and the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence. In contrast, the public prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations and not to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Moreover, the trial court could not dismiss the case since the it had yet to acquire complete criminal jurisdiction over the persons of all the accused

8. On the other hand, OSG avers that the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the persons of all the accused, either by their respective arrests or by the filing of pleadings before the court praying for affirmative relief

ISSUE: WON the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the public prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the Information and in lifting the warrant of arrest against the petitioners on the DOJ’s finding that there was no probable cause for the filing of said Information.

HELD: Yes.

The ruling in Crespo v. Mogul that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence and discretion of the trial court. This rule applies in motion to withdraw the Information or dismiss the case even before or after the arraignment of the accused. The only qualification is that the action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People or the private complainant to due process of law.

The trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice that no crime was committed or that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused. As the Court emphasized in Martinez v. Court of Appeals, the trial court must make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record of the prosecution.

The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.

In this case, the trial court failed to make an independent assessment of the merits of the cases and the evidence on record or in the possession of the public prosecutor. In granting the motion of the public prosecutor to withdraw the Informations, the trial court relied solely on the joint resolution of the Secretary of Justice, as gleaned from its assailed order. In granting the public prosecutor’s motion, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and acted as a mere surrogate of the Secretary of Justice.

Worse, the trial court knew that the Joint Resolution of the Secretary of Justice had not yet become final and executory because the respondent, the private complainant, had filed a timely motion for the reconsideration thereof which had not yet been resolved by the Secretary of Justice. It behooved the trial court to wait for the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on the motion for reconsideration of the respondent before resolving the motion of the public prosecutor to withdraw the Informations. In fine, the trial court acted with inordinate haste.

Had the trial court bothered to review its records before issuing its assailed order, it would have recalled that aside from the affidavits of Azarcon, Ernesto and Dennis, there

was also the affidavit of Frias implicating the petitioner and the other accused to the killing of Francis and that it even gave credence to the testimony and affidavit of Azarcon when it denied Tonion and Soriano’s petition for bail. Moreover, the trial court found probable cause against the petitioner and issued a warrant for her arrest despite the pendency of her petition for review in the Department of Justice, only to make a complete volte face because of the Joint Resolution of the Secretary of Justice.

PRINCIPLES:1. Withdrawal of Information already filed in court. Once a criminal complaint is filed

in court, any disposition of the caseor dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence and discretion of the trial court

2. The trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the DOJ that no crime was committed on that the evidence of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused

G.R. No. 88442 February 15, 1990

FELIX A. VELASQUEZ, petitioner, vs.HON. UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE, HON. ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO and EDGARDO AVILA, respondents.

Facts:

Respondent Edgardo Avila was a Cash and Business Development Consultant of the Techtrade Management International Corporation, authorized to follow-up business transactions, including loan applications submitted to the company. He informed the company that he had a borrower (whom he did not identify). It was approved by the company which issued to him a pay-to-cash check for P194,000 after deducting the 3% interest of 6,000. Instead of returning the borrowed amount on due date or giving a satisfactory explanation for the supposed borrower's failure to pay the loan despite written demands, he resigned from the company leaving them a certain promise.

Petitioner Felix A. Velasquez, as Executive Vice-President/Managing Director of Techtrade, filed a complaint for estafa against Avila in the Manila City Fiscal's Office. Assistant Fiscal Romulo Lopez dismissed the complaint. However, upon review by the Chief, Investigation Division of the City Fiscal's Office, the latter set aside Fiscal Lopez' resolution and ordered the filing of an information for estafa against Avila in the Regional Trial Court.

Before arraignment, Avila filed in the Department of Justice a petition for review which the petitioner opposed. Justice Undersecretary Silvestre Bello III denied the petition for review. Avila filed a second motion for reconsideration which the Undersecretary of Justice, Honorable Artemio Tuquero granted. He directed the City Fiscal to conduct a reinvestigation of this case to afford respondent to properly present evidence that he was duly authorized to pay the subject creditors and for complainant to rebut the same with controverting evidence, and thereafter to resolve the case anew on the basis of all the evidence adduced. The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of that resolution but it was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not the Undersecretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in ordering the re-investigation of the criminal case against Avila.

Held:

Yes. This case is governed by our decision in Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462, where we ruled that once the information is filed in court, the court acquires complete jurisdiction over it. A motion for reinvestigation should, after the court had acquired

jurisdiction over the case, be addressed to the trial judge and to him alone. Neither the Secretary of Justice, the State Prosecutor, nor the Fiscal may interfere with the judge's disposition of the case, much less impose upon the court their opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, for the court is the sole judge of that.

The avowed purpose of the reinvestigation "to give an opportunity to the private respondent to present an authentic copy of the board resolution of the offended party (Techtrade Management International Corporation) which [allegedly] had authorized him to deal and otherwise dispose of the funds of the corporation" can also be achieved at the trial in the lower court where that piece of evidence may be presented by the accused as part of his defense.