GR no.

127107 October 12, 1998

Peter Paul Dimatulac and Veronica Dimatulac, petitioners vs. Hon. Sensinando Villon, et. al., respondents.

Facts:
SP03 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Pampanga. A complaint for murder was filed in the
MTC and after preliminary investigation, Judge Designate David issued warrants of arrest against the
accused.
Only David, Mandap, Magat, and Yambao were arrested and it was only Yambao who submitted his counter-
affidavit. Judge David then issued a resolution finding reasonable ground that the crime of murder has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
Though it was not clear whether Pampanga Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores acted motu
proprio, or upon motion of the private respondents, she conducted a reinvestigation and resolved that
the Yabuts and Danny were in conspiracy, along with the other accused, and committed homicide.
Before the information for homicide was filed, the Petitioner appealed the resolution of Alfonso-Flores to the
Secretary of Justice. However, Provincial Proseutor Maranag ordered for the release of David, Mandap,
Magat, and Naguit. An information for homicide was also filed before the Regional Trial Court.
Judge Raura approved the cash bonds of the Yabuts and recalled the warrants of arrest against them.
Private Prosecutor Amado Valdez then filed a Motion to issue hold departure order and Urgent Motion to
defer proceedings. Judge Roura deferred the resolution of the first Motion and denied the second. He also
set the arraignment of the accused.
The petitioners filed a Motion to inhibit Judge Roura for hastily setting the date for arraignment pending the
appeal in the DOJ and for prejudging the matter. They also filed a Petition for prohibition with the Court
of Appeals.
Public Prosecutor Datu filed a Manifestation and Comment with the trial court and opposed the inhibition of
Roura. He also stated that he will no longer allow the private prosecutor to participate. Judge Roura
voluntarily inhibited himself and was replaced by Judge Villon.
The Petitioners filed with the RTC a Manifestation submitting documentary evidence to support their
contention that the offense committed was murder.
Judge Villon ordered for the resetting of the arraignment. The Yabuts entered a plea of not guilty. The
petitioners then filed a Urgent Motion to set aside arraignment.
Secretary Guingona of the DOJ resolved the appeal in favor of the petitioners. He also ruled that treachery was
present.
The Yabuts opposed the Manifestation because they have already been arraigned and they would be put
under double jeopardy.
The Secretary of Justice then set aside his order and the appeal was held not and academic due to the
previous arraignment of the accused for homicide.
Judge Villon denied the Motion to set aside arraignment. The motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Hence, this petition for certiorari/prohibition and mandamus.

Issues:

Whether the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in reinvestigating the
case without having the respondents within the custody of the law and for filing the information pending
the appeal of the resolution with the DOJ.
Whether Hon. Villon acted with grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the arraignment and for denying
the Motions to set aside the arraignment.
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering his order.


Decision:

Petition is GRANTED.
Alfonso-Reyes was guilty of having acted with grave abuse of discretion for conducting a reinvestigation
despite the fact that the Yabuts were still at large. Though Sec. 5, Rule 112 states that the prosecutor is not bound
by the findings of the judge who conducted the investigation, the resolution should be based on the review of the
record and evidence transmitted. Hence, she should have sustained the recommendation since all the accused,
except Yambao, failed to file their counter-affidavits. It is impossible for Alfonso-Reyes to not have known the
appeal filed with the DOJ. The filing of an appeal is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. There is
nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of an appeal once an information is filed.

Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion for deferring the resolution to the motion for a hold
departure order. Since the accused were out on bail, the Motion should have been granted since they could have
easily fled. Though he is not bound to the resolution of the DOJ, he should have perused the documents
submitted.

The DOJ was also in grave abuse of its discretion for setting aside its order. In doing so, it has relinquished
its power of control and supervision of the Public Prosecutor. The state has been deprived of due process. Hence,
the dismissal of the case is null and void and double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused.