CASE: DIMATULAC VS VILLON

297 SCRA 679 / GR no. 127107

October 12, 1998

FACTS:

Virgilio Dimatulac (SPO3) 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 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 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 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 the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in

reconsidering his order.

DECISION:

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 Villon 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.

Therefore, the dismissal of the case is null and void and double jeopardy cannot be
invoked by the accused.