court of appeals resolution affirmiming the dismissal of murder charge against former governor

7/22/2019 Court of Appeals Resolution affirmiming the dismissal of murder charge against former governor

1/6

-g

C.H,-G.R. P No. t2l553

Members:Tijam, N. G.ChairpersonLampas Peralta, F.Barza, R. F,Acosta, F. P., andGacutan, A. 4,, I,

Promulgated:

KeqrlaltedPlf i - i l ' t g

f*

Republic of the Philippines@ourt flppestsManilaSPECIAI,TENTHDIVISIONDIVISION OT TIVE

MARrOIOEr,T. REYES,Petitioner,

- versus

SECRETARYLEILA DE LIII{A,ASSIST.trNT TATEPROSECUTOR$TEWART .trIrIrH,N8. MARIJINO,ASSISTANTSTATEPROSECUTORVILMAR M. BARCELI,ANO,ASSISTANTSTATEPROSECUTORGER-ELDE. GAERITEN,andP.H,TRIfi, LORTI INO CENCIOoRTEGAn Respondents. SEP

GACUT.H,N,H.. .r I.iBefore Us is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by publicrespondents Secretary Leila de Lima, Prosecutor General ClaroArellano, and State Prosecutors Stewart Allan A. Mariano, VilmarM. Barcellano and Gerald E. Gaerlan, seeking a reconsideration ofour Decision dated March 19, 2013, the dispositive portion ofwhich reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,We herehy grant the Petitionfor Certiorari and Prohibitionand udgment is hereby rendered: ^ 7f i {

RESOLUTION


2/6

C.[-G.R.SPNo. l?1553RESOITUTIONPage2 of 6a. DECITA,RING as NUITIJand VOID Department

Order No. 710 including the resolution of the secondPanel of Prosecutors dated March 12, 2012; andb. REIN$T.F,TING the Resolutions of the firstPanel of Prosecutors dated June 8, 20I1 andSeptember 2,201I.SO ORDERED,''

The motion states the following grounds:"I. The People of the Philippines is also an aggrieved party.II. The Honorable Court grossly misappreciated the facts ofIhe case when it ruled that the Secretary of Justicecommitted grave abuse of discretion because she didnot rule on the Petition for Review but instead issuedD.O.No. 710 .

D.O. No. 710 is valid. Il was issued by the Secretary ofJustice even before any of the parties filed a Petition forReview.

III. Law and Jurisprudence recognize the authority of theSecretary of Justice to appoint a prosecutor to conduct areinvestigation.IV. The Second Panel of Prosecutors did not exceed theirauthority when they recommended the filing of aninformation against the petitioner. It must beemphasized that it was the Prosecutor General whomodified the first Panel's resolutionV. Even if D.O. No. 710 is declared to be a nullity, theResolution dated March 13, 20I2 remains to be valid inview of respondent prosecutors' de {acto authority toconduet the reinvestigation.On the first ground cited, public respondents would like toimpress us that the real complainant in a preliminary investigationof a criminal case before the DOJ is the People of the Philippines,who is represented by the Secretary of Justice. Public respondentscontend that if the family of the victim does not wish to pursue an

appeal of an erroneous resolution finding no probable causeagainst a respondent, the People, through the Secretary of Justiceis left without recourse in crimes were there are no privatecomplainants. They assert that Our assailed Decision dated March19,2013negates he power of control expresslygrantedby law toq


3/6

lt;;''l""t'"

CA-G.R.SPNo. t2l553RESOITUTIONPage3 of 6the Secretary of Justice and 'ocreates an untenable and insidiousstate of affairs where crimes could potentially go unpunishedn andinjustice, whether through erroneous resolutions or delay or both,is permitted to prevail unrectified."

First off, the scenario described above by publicrespondents does not obtain in the instant case' The Resolution ofthe First Pane1 of Prosecutors which found no probable causeagainst the petitioner for insufficiency of evidence' was noterroneous. It was rendered after a full and impartial hearing. Notevery accusation segues into the indictment of the accused. Ifevidence is lacking, the accused, who enjoys the presumption ofinnocence, as well as the State, should be free from the burdenand uncertainties of a litigious trial'

secondly, there is a private complainant in this case, PatriaGloria Inocencio Ortega, the widow of the slain victim "DocGerry". Patty Ortega took active part in pursuing the case, thus,there shoutd be no occasion to fear that the People is "withoutrecourse". But oddly, when recourse was taken by Patty Ortega,her Petition for Review ad cautelam did not merit the attention ofpublic respondent Secretary of Justice.Ttrus, we do not find the first argument to be persuasive.The preliminary investigation is the initiatory stage of a criminalcase where the role of the Department of Justice is not that ofprosecutor on behalf of the complainant, whether the private-omptainant or the People of the Philippines, as posited by publicrespondents. The duty of the Department of Justice is to conductan inquiry for the pulpose of determining whether there issufficient ground to engender a well'founded belief that a crimehas been committed and that respondent is probably guiltythereof, and should be held for trial.r fhe proseeutor is expectedto act as a neutral arbiter akin to "the cold neutrality of an impartialjudge", otherwise, he becomes an advocate of the complainingparty and this would impinge on the substantive right of personssuspected of crimes.We do not, thus, remove from the Secretary of Justice theauthority to review resolutions of the prosecutors if no petition forreview is filed. The Secretary of Justice can review the decision ofthe First Panel of Prosecutors without the need for creating theSecond Panel of Prosecutors, What we have stated is that "theexercise of such awesome power is not unbridled." \Mhen PattyOrtega filed her Petition for Review Ad Cautelam the resolution "fn/I Section , Rule I 12,Rulesof Court I


4/6

.,:il',t|#{. ' t '

CA-G.R.SFNo. 121553RESOIJUTIONPage 4 of 6the First Panel of Prosecutors dated June 8, 2011 still subsists andthis fact was confirmed by the Secretary of Justice in her reply tothe letter of Atty. Custodio ]r., counsel of petitioner, as she statedthat "D.O. No. 7I0 does not set aside the resolutions dated June 8,2011 and September Z, 201I rendered by the previous panel ofprosecutors".

We stress anew, that our Decision has not clipped any powerof the Secretary of Justice to review the finding of any prosecutorbut that power should be used by observing proper proceduralprotocols in accord with the Rules governing investigations ofcases. In the case at bench, there was already a "petition by theproper party", creating the occasion for the exercise of suchpower by the Secretary of Justice but the latter did not.

As regards the second issue, We are not swayed by theargument that the Second Panel was created by the Secretary ofJustice "to prevent a miscarriage of justice". It has not beendemonstrated how and when a "miscarriage of justice" actuallyoccurred in this case. A full-blown proceedings were conductedby the First Panel. Both parties were given full opportunity toappear before the said panel where they were fr{ly representedby their respective counsel. The First Panel of Prosecutorsreceived the evidence of both parties. fhe Motion for PartialReconsideration and Motion to Re-Open Preliminary Investigationfor the purpose of introducing supposedly "new evidence" wereproperly acted upon by the First Panel. Thus, neither party wasdeprived of his constitutional rights during the preliminaryinvestigation before the First Panel of Prosecutors. Specifically,the remedies availed of by Patty Ortega such as the motion for there-opening of the investigation for the admission of the records ofcommunication between petitioner and Edrad; the motion forpartial reconsideration ad cautelam of the June B, 2011 resolutionand the petition for review assailing the September 2, 20tlresolution of the first panel of prosecutors amply served the"interest of senrice and due processn'

We also observe that the "additional evidence" sought to bepresented partakes more of "forgotten evidence" than of "newly-discovered evidence". The said "forgotten evidence" was alreadyavailable during the course of preliminary investigation before theFirst Panel. We believe that the failure to present such "forgottenevidence" is not a ground for reopening or new trial. If a case maybe reopened from time to time as a party or his lawyer remembersevidence which was overlooked, then litigation will suffer unduedelay. The prosecutory arm of the state cannot be allowed to kee;ory


5/6

CA-G.R. SPNo. 121553RESOLUTIONPage 5 of 6conducting one investigation after another until the desired end isachieved, lest, it may be perceived as a persecution rather than acriminal investigation.

Public respondents invoke the Manual for Prosecutors injustifying the creation of the Second Panel. We believe, however,that the said manual consists merely of internal rules for theguidance of the National Prosecution Service. What should prevailis the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal, whichhad been duly published and therefore has the force and effect ofadjective statute. Under the said Rules, the reinvestigation mustbe made by the same prosecutor, or in this case, panel ofprosecutors. The exception is for "compelling reasons" which,however, have not been shown in this case.At any rate, the Secretary of Justice stated in her letter topetitioner's counsel that the findings of the First Panel are notvacated by the Second Panel. Since the review power of theSecretary was already in play upon the filing of the parties'respective Petitions for Review, there was no need for the SecondPanel to further discharge its functions and, thus, caused confusionon the DOJ'srules of procedure.Lastly, the pubtic respondents argue that even if D'O. No'710 is declared a nullity, the Resolution dated March 13, 2012remains valid because the prosecutors comprising the SecondPanel had "de facto authority to conduct the reinvestigation". Thisis a dangerous stance that is promotive of chaos and misc-hiefs nthe ranks of the National Prosecution Service if any prosecutor caninitiate any criminal investigation or re-investigate without anydirective from the Head of the Department. It must be stressedthat the Second Panel of Prosecutorswas created by virtue of D.O.No.7t0. If the act that created the Second Panel of Prosecutors isvoid, it defies logic for its resolution to prevail over the resolutionof the First Panel created under D.O. No. 091 which was neverdeclared void.At this point, We end our discussion by reiterating theseparate and concurring opinion of Justice Francisco P. Acosta, towit:

"There can be no argument that pending affirmation,reversal, modification or nullification of the Secretary ofJustice herself of the resolutions issued by the first panel ofprosecutors, said resolutions are still valid and subsisting.It bears to stress at this point that the power to atfirm,6{,


6/6

,i:'-Cj[-c.R. SPNo. 121553RESOI,UTIONPage6 of 6

reverse, modify or nullify an act made by the prosecutorsrests on the Secretary of Justice and not on any otherprosecutor,x x x."

WHEREfORE, premises considered, the Motion forReconsideration is hereby DENTED for lack of merit. The assailedDecision ST.ENDS.SO ORDERED.

O^^r/rL &r..r^,ANGELITA JT.GAGUTANAssociate usticelitrE CONCIJR:

f rrono qnc{ fuulitcs Ap^ uo"k$lr{iar .rw'j.:#,f;,,m r=***ftt#,Su pff pERArr.*AssociateJustice.r#nirnrefscop.AcosrlAssociateJusticeROMEO

court of appeals resolution affirmiming the dismissal of murder charge against former governor

Documents