Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sales Vs Sandiganbayan Facts
Sales Vs Sandiganbayan Facts
FACTS:
> Petitioner, the incumbent town mayor, fatally shot the former
mayor and his political rival after a heated altercation between
them. After the shooting incident, petitioner surrendered and
placed himself under the custody of the municipal police.
> Private respondent Thelma Benemerito, wife of the victim,
filed a criminal complaint for Murder against petitioner.
> Judge Calvan then conducted a preliminary examination of
the witnesses and found the existence of probable cause, and
thereafter issued warrant for the arrest of petitioner with no
bail recommended.
> Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of
Appeals alleging that: 1.] the order and warrant of arrest for
which petitioner was detained is null and void for being issued
by respondent judge who was disqualified by law from acting
on the case by reason of his affinity to private respondent
Thelma Benemerito; and 2.] the preliminary examination by
respondent judge was so illegally and irregularly conducted as
to oust the said judge of jurisdiction over the case.
> Appellate court granted the petition for habeas corpus and
ordered the release of petitioner from detention subject to the
outcome of the proper preliminary investigation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Ombudsman followed the proper
procedure in conducting a preliminary investigation?
RULING:
NO. The purpose of a preliminary investigation or a
previous inquiry of some kind, before an accused person is
placed on trial, is to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from
an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble,
expenses and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to
protect the state from having to conduct useless and
expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than
constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due
process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a
criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or
some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is
a substantive right. To deny the accused claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his
BAYTAN vs COMELEC
FACTS:
> Petitioners were on their way to register for the May 1998
elections when they met the newly elected Barangay Captain
and in Barangay 18 and led petitioners to register.
> They wondered why the registrants in this precinct looked
unfamiliar to them. This prompted petitioners to return to the
registration center to study the precinct map of Barangay 18.
They then realized that their residence is situated within the
jurisdiction of Barangay 28. Thus, petitioners proceeded to
Barangay 28 and registered anew.
> Subsequently, petitioners sent a to COMELEC requested for
advice on how to cancel their previous registration and
explained the reason and circumstances of their second
registration and expressed their intention to redress the error.
> Provincial Election Supervisor recommended filing an
information for double registration against petitioners affirmed
by the COMELEC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not COMELEC en banc committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in recommending the prosecution of petitioners for double
registration despite clear and convincing evidence on record
that they had no intention of committing said election offense?
RULING:
NO. The grant by the Constitution to the COMELEC
of the power to investigate and prosecute election offenses is
intended to enable the COMELEC to assure the people of
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. This
grant is an adjunct to the COMELECs constitutional duty to
enforce and administer all election laws.
SEC. 261. Prohibited Acts. [ELECTION CODE] (5) Any
person who, being a registered voter, registers anew
without filing an application for cancellation of his
previous registration.
Petitioners lose sight of the fact that the assailed resolutions
were issued in the preliminary investigation stage. A
preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial and is
only the means to discover who may be charged with a
PADERANGA vs DRILON
FACTS:
> An information for multiple murder was filed in the RTC and
Only Felipe Galarion was tried and found guilty as charged. The
rest of the accused remained at large. Felipe Galarion, however,
escaped from detention and has not been apprehended since
then.
> In an amended information, Felizardo Roxas, "Fely Roxas" and
"Lolong Roxas," was included as a co-accused. Roxas retained
petitioner Paderanga as his counsel.
> Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to dismiss, to Quash the
Warrant of Arrest but denied this omnibus motion and directed the
City Prosecutor "to conduct another preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation in order to grant the accused all the opportunity to
adduce whatever evidence he has in support of his defense."
> In the course of the preliminary investigation, Roxas implicated
herein petitioner in the commission of the crime charged.
> The City Prosecutor inhibited himself from further conducting
the preliminary investigation and respondent State Prosecutor
Henrick F. Gingoyon, who was designated to continue with the
conduct of the preliminary investigation against petitioner, directed
the amendment of the previously amended information to include
and implead herein petitioner as one of the accused therein.
> Petitioner filed a Petition for Review but was denied by the DOJ.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the preliminary investigation as to him
was not complete and that no prima facie evidence or probable
cause to justify his inclusion in the second amended information?
RULING:
Preliminary investigation is generally inquisitorial, and it is
often the only means of discovering the persons who may be
reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to
prepare his complaint. It is not a trial of the case on the
merits and has no purpose except that of determining
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty, and it
does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy.
The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound
discretion of the fiscal. He has the quasi-judicial discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court.
Hence, the general rule is that an injunction will not be granted to
restrain a criminal prosecution. [Brocka, et al. vs. Enrile, et al.]
cites several exceptions to the rule, to wit:
GO vs CA
FACTS:
> Eldon Maguan was driving his car in a one way street and
started travelling in the opposite or "wrong" direction.
> Petitioners and Maguan's cars nearly bumped each other.
Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan
inside his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the
scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to
take down petitioner's car plate number.
> Petitioner presented himself before Police Station to verify
news reports that he was being hunted by the police.
> An eyewitness to the shooting positively identified petitioner
as the gunman, and the police promptly filed a complaint for
frustrated homicide.
> While the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before
an information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon
Maguan, died of his gunshot wounds; instead of filing an
information for frustrated homicide, filed an information for
murder before the RTC.
> Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had
been conducted because the accused did not execute and
sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code.
> Counsel for petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus
motion for immediate release and proper preliminary
investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest of petitioner
was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been
conducted before the information was filed.
> Trial court issued an Order granting leave to conduct
preliminary investigation but respondent judge recalled such
order resulting to filing of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
to SC but it was remanded to CA; CA denied the motions and
trial for criminal case commenced.
> Petition for review on certiorari was filed before this court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner had effectively waived
his right to preliminary investigation?
RULING:
NO. If the case has been filed in court without a
preliminary investigation having been first conducted, the
accused may within five (5) days from the time he learns of the
filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigation with
the same right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner
ALLADO vs DIOKNO
FACTS:
> Petitioners are alumni of the College of Law, UP, are
partners of the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado,
they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping
with murder by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission
(PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent
judge.
> Sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal, implicating them
as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of one
Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German national.
> A day after Umbal executed his extrajudicial confession, the
operatives of the PACC, armed with a search warrant
separately raided the two (2) dwellings of Santiago.
> After evaluating the pieces of evidence gathered by PACC
operatives, a case for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition, carnapping, kidnapping for ransom with murder,
and usurpation of authority was charged.
> SPO2 Bato, confessing participation in the abduction and
slaying of Van Twest and implicating petitioners Allado and
Mendoza, however, before petitioners could refute Bato's
counter-affidavit, he moved to suppress it on the ground that it
was extracted through intimidation and duress.
> Petitioners filed petition holding that respondent judge acted
with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in
"whimsically holding that there is probable cause against
petitioners without determining the admissibility of the
evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis
of his findings.
> On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General argues
that the determination of probable cause is a function of the
judge who is merely required to personally appreciate certain
facts to convince him that the accused probably committed the
crime charged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a probable cause existed and
sufficient enough for the arrest of the petitioners?
RULING:
NO. Probable cause is a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded,
such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as
would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to
believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a
thing is so. The term does not mean "actual and positive
DOROMAL vs SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
> Special Prosecution Officer (Tanodbayan), conducted a
preliminary investigation of the charge against the petitioner,
Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of PCGG, forviolation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection
with his shareholdings and position as president and director of
the Doromal International Trading Corporation (DITC);
subsequently, filed in the Sandiganbayan an information against
the petitioner.
> The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this
Court questioning the jurisdiction of the "Tanodbayan" to file the
information without the approval of the Ombudsman. Court
annulled the information.
> Upon the annulment of the information against the petitioner,
the Special Prosecutor sought clearance from the Ombudsman
and new information was filed.
the above-named accused [Doromal] a public officer,
being then a Commissioner of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government, did then and there
wilfully and unlawfully, participate in a business through
the Doromal International Trading Corporation, a family
corporation of which he is the President, and which
company participated in the biddings conducted by the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the
National Manpower & Youth Council, which act or
participation is prohibited by law and the constitution.
> Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash" the information for being:
(a) invalid because there had been no preliminary investigation;
(b) facts alleged do not constitute the offense charged.
> Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash.
> The petitioner contends that as the preliminary investigation that
was conducted prior to the filing of the original information was
nullified, another preliminary investigation should have been
conducted before the new information was filed against him. Such
denial violates his right to due process and constitutes a ground
to quash the information.
> Public respondent argues that another preliminary investigation
is unnecessary because both old and new informations involve
the same subject matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a new preliminary investigation is
needed and can be afforded to the petitioner?
RULING:
YES. A new preliminary investigation of the charge
against the petitioner is in order not only because the first was
a nullity but also because the accused demands it as his right.
Moreover, the charge against him had been changed, as
directed by the Ombudsman.
The petitioner's right to a preliminary investigation of the new
charge is secured to him by the following provisions of Rule
112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
However, before the filing of such complaint or
information, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation by a proper officer.
If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary
investigation having been first conducted, the accused
may within five (5) days from the time he learns of the
filing of the information, ask for a preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in
his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule.
That right of the accused is "a substantial one." Its denial over
his opposition is a "prejudicial error, in that it subjects the
accused to the loss of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law".
The Solicitor General's argument that the right to a preliminary
investigation may be waived and was in fact waived by the
petitioner, impliedly admits that the right exists. Since the
right belongs to the accused, he alone may waive it. If he
demands it, the State may not withhold it.
However, as the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a
ground to quash the complaint or information, the proceedings
upon such information in the Sandiganbayan should be held in
abeyance and the case should be remanded to the office of
the Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to conduct
a preliminary investigation.
The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the
court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the
validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; but,
if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants,
before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to
their absence, the court, instead of dismissing the information
should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it
or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary
investigation may be conducted.
WEBB vs DE LEON
VELASCO vs CASACLANG
FACTS:
FACTS:
National Bureau of Investigation filed with the DOJ a lettercomplaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
Antonio J. Lejano and 6 other persons with the crime of Rape and
Homicide of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita NicolasVizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home.
Forthwith, the DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Asst
Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to conduct the
preliminary investigation.
Petitioners: fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable cause.
They assail the credibility of Jessica Alfaro as inherently weak and
uncorroborated due to her inconsistencies between her April 28,
1995 and May 22, 1995 sown statements. They criticize the
procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not examine
witnesses to clarify the alleged inconsistencies.
Charge that respondent Judge Raul de Leon and respondent
Judge Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them
without conducting the required preliminary examination.
Complain about the denial of their constitutional right to due
process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation.
They also assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their
preliminary investigation.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the DOJ Panel gravely abuse its discretion in
holding that there is probable cause to charge accused with crime
of rape and homicide?
(2) Whether or not the respondent judges de Leon and Tolentino
gravely abuse their discretion when they failed to conduct a
preliminary examination before issuing warrants of arrest against
the accused?
(3) Whether or not the DOJ Panel deny them their constitutional
right to due process during their preliminary investigation?
RULINGS:
(1) NO. Valid determination -- A probable cause needs only to rest
on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Applying these basic norms, we are not prepared to rule that the
DOJ Panel gravely abused its discretion when it found probable
cause against the petitioners.
(2) NO. Valid arrest -- In arrest cases, there must be a probable
cause that a crime has been committed and that the person
arrested committed it. An arrest without a probable cause is an
unreasonable seizure of a person, and violates the privacy of
persons which ought not to be intruded by the State. Probable
cause to warrant arrest is not an opaque concept in our
jurisdiction.
Section 6 of Rule 112 provides that upon filing of an
information, the RTC may issue a warrant for the accused.
Clearly then, our laws repudiate the submission that respondent
judges should have conducted searching examination of
witnesses before issuing warrants of arrest against them.
(3) NO. There is no merit in this contention because petitioners
were given all the opportunities to be heard. The records will
show that the DOJ Panel did not conduct the preliminary
investigation with indecent haste. Petitioners were given fair
opportunity to prove lack of probable cause against them.
The DOJ Panel precisely requested the parties to adduce more
evidence in their behalf and for the panel to study the evidence
submitted more fully.
BALGOS vs SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
> Petitioners were charged with violation of Section 3(c) of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practice Act, as amended, in an information that was
filed with the Sandiganbayan by the Special Prosecutor which
was approved by the Deputy Tanodbayan, after a preliminary
investigation.
> Petitioners filed a motion for reinvestigation in the
Tanodbayan. The same was granted.
> After conducting the reinvestigation, the Tanodbayan issued
an order to withdraw the Information filed in Criminal Case as
soon as possible in the interest of justice.
> Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to
withdraw the information against petitioners. This was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in denying
the motion to withdraw the information?
RULING:
NO. In the case of Crespo vs. Mogul, this Court laid
down the ground rules and the parameters pertaining to the
direction and control of the prosecution of a criminal action by
the fiscal or government prosecutor as provided for in the rules
in relation to the jurisdiction of the competent courts over such
cases. We ruled that while the public prosecutor has the
sole direction and control in the prosecution of offenses,
once the complaint or information is filed in court, the
court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case and all
subsequent actions that may be taken by the public
prosecutor in relation to the disposition of the case must
be subject to the approval of the said court.
In such an instance, before a re-investigation of the case
may be conducted by the public prosecutor, the
permission or consent of the court must be secured. And
if after such reinvestigation the prosecution finds a
cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise
cause the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of
ALONZO vs CONCEPCION
FACTS:
> Jose Alonzo filed a complaint for murder against Salamat,
Rances, Santos, SPO4 Alonzo and a certain Isidro Atienza. A
preliminary investigation was conducted by the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor where Jose Alonzo and his four
witnesses testified. Upon review of the records, it was
recommended that Salamat be charged with murder as
principal, and Santos and Rances as accessories. With regard
to SPO4 Alonzo and Isidro Atienza, the prosecutor found that
no sufficient evidence was adduced to establish their
conspiracy for the murder of Pedrito.
> The court for interest of justice that should be given the
victim in this case and prosecute all the persons against whom
probable cause exists as principals in this case of murder, the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan is hereby
directed to amend the information, so as to include all the
aforenamed persons as accused in this case, all as principals,
within five (5) days from notice hereof.
> SPO4 Alonzo filed his Motion for Reconsideration 7 to the
Order, on the ground that the court had no authority to review
and reverse the resolution of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor or to find probable cause against a respondent for
the purpose of amending the Information. SPO4 Alonzo
averred that the prosecutors resolution can only be reviewed
by the Department of Justice.
> SPO4 Alonzo filed a verified affidavit-complaint against
Judge for: a) gross ignorance of the law; b) violation of Section
2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution; c) abuse of authority
under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court; d) knowingly
rendering an unjust order; e) conduct unbecoming of a judge;
and f) oppression and partiality.
> The OCA recommended that the complaint be dismissed on
the ground that the Order and the acts complained of were
done by respondent in his judicial capacity and were not
actuated by bad faith, dishonesty or similar motive. In addition,
the proper remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
and not an administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the responded judge is guilty of the
following accusations?
RULING:
YES. The Court cannot follow the recommendation of
the OCA. Respondent clearly erred when he rendered the
assailed Order. The rules set the proper procedure for the
investigation of complaints and designate the prosecutor to
conduct the preliminary investigation. The function of a
preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and the respondent is probably
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. It is through the
conduct of a preliminary investigation that the prosecutor
determines the existence of a prima facie case that would
warrant the prosecution of a case. As a rule, courts cannot
interfere with the prosecutor's discretion and control of
the criminal prosecution. The reason for placing the
criminal prosecution under the direction and control of
the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded
prosecution by private persons. However, while prosecuting
officers have the authority to prosecute persons shown to be
guilty of a crime, they have equally the legal duty not to
prosecute when after an investigation, the evidence adduced
is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Judges
should not unduly interfere with the exercise of the power
to prosecute on the part of fiscals.
We understand respondents zeal in trying to uphold the ends
of justice. However, respondent overlooked the fact that
there is a remedy where a prosecutor errs in not charging
a person in an Information. The recourse is to appeal to
the Secretary of Justice. By ordering the prosecutor to
include complainant, Rances and Santos as principals in
the Information, respondent arrogated unto himself the
executive power of supervision and control over public
prosecutors. His conduct is not only unbecoming of a
judge; more importantly, it transgresses our Constitution.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Judge Crisanto C.
Concepcion is found liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge
and is REPRIMANDED. He is sternly warned that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
RODIL vs GARCIA
FACTS:
> Petitioner was charged of murder and that of counsel wanted to
recall the prosecution to enable to cross-examine them for
"clarificatory and amplificatory matters" but denied by the
respondent judge that led to this proceeding for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction.
> Such a comment was submitted on behalf of respondent by the
Solicitor General seeking the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that the right to cross-examine in a preliminary
investigation is not a right granted an accused and that the
exercise of discretion by respondent Judge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsel for petitioner could recall
witnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of asking
clarificatory questions?
RULING:
NO. Under the present state of the law, it cannot be said
that the right to cross-examine is guaranteed an accused at the
stage of preliminary investigation. That leaves the question of the
alleged grave abuse of discretion in that he refused to allow
counsel for petitioner during the stage of preliminary investigation
proper to recall prosecution witnesses so that counsel could
cross-examine them on "clarificatory and amplificatory matters."
As set forth earlier, the accused is not by law entitled to such a
right.
An accused is not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses
presented against him in the preliminary investigation before his
arrest, this being a matter that depends on the sound discretion of
the Judge or investigating officer concerned. Petitioner-appellant's
attempt to draw a parallel between the refusal of the judge to
allow her to cross-examine prosecution's witnesses, with the
permission granted to the latter as against the defense witnesses,
assumes the existence of a vested right of which petitionerappellant had been deprived. In being denied confrontation of the
prosecution witnesses, she was not deprived of any right but was
merely refused the exercise of a privilege. With the ruling on the
question for bail, counsel for petitioner, as above intimated, would
be able to attain the objective which was denied him when he was
not allowed to recall the prosecution witnesses. To follow the
LEVISTE vs ALAMEDA
FACTS:
> Petitioner was, by Information charged with homicide for the
death of Rafael de las Alas before the RTC presided by Judge
Elmo Alameda. Petitioner who was placed under police
custody while confined at the Makati Medical Center.
> The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed, with the
conformity of the public prosecutor, an Urgent Omnibus
Motion, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the
public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to
conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense.
RTC granted.
> Petitioner assailed these orders via certiorari and prohibition
before the Court of Appeals but was dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not in cases when an accused is arrested
without a warrant, the remedy of preliminary investigation
belongs only to the accused.
RULING:
NO. The Court holds that the private complainant can
move for reinvestigation.
All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor The private complainant in a criminal case is
merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot, by
himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the
information had been filed in court, the proper party for that
being the public prosecutor who has the control of the
prosecution of the case. Thus, in cases where the private
complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the
criminal action, and is granted the authority to prosecute,
the private complainant, by counsel and with the
conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for
reinvestigation.
In such an instance, before a re-investigation of the case
may be conducted by the public prosecutor, the
permission or consent of the court must be secured. If
DIMATULLAC vs VILLON
FACTS:
> Complaint for Murder was filed before the MCTC against
private respondents.
> After conducting a preliminary examination in the form of
searching questions and answers, and finding probable cause,
MCTC issued warrants for the arrest of the accused.
> Court finding reasonable ground to believe that the crime of
murder had been committed and that the accused were
probably guilty thereof.
On or about November 2, 2005 all the accused under
the leadership of Mayor Santiago Yabut went to the
house of PO3 Virgilio Dimatulac. Some of the
accused positioned themselves around the house
while the others stood by the truck and the mayor
stayed in the truck with the body guard. Accused Billy
YAbut, Kati YAbut & Franncisco Yambao went inside
the house strongly suggested to go down to see the
mayor outside and ask for sorry. As Dimatulac went
down to the house and he was shot to kill as a
consequence he died.
> The assistant prosecutor found that the Yabuts were in
company with one another that the offense committed was
only homicide not murder and hereby subject to bail for each
of the accused.
> Treachery therefore could not be appreciated and the crime
reasonably believe[d] to have been committed is Homicide as
no circumstance would qualify the killing to murder. The herein
petitioner appealed the resolution to the Secretary of Justice.
Pending appeal to the DOJ, Judge Roura hastily set the case
for arraignment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not arraignment to lesser penalty of
homicide is proper while the case is pending in the DOJ
subject for Review?
RULING:
In the case it is not proper. Indubitably then, there was on the
part of the public prosecution, indecent haste in the filing of
TY vs NBI
FACTS:
> Petitioners are stockholders of Omni Gas Corporation
(Omni); The case all started when JGAC Law Offices sent a
letter to the NBI requesting, on behalf of their clients for the
surveillance, investigation, and apprehension of persons or
establishments engaged in alleged illegal trading of petroleum
products and underfilling of branded LPG cylinders in violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 33.
> The NBIs test-buy yielded positive results for violations of
BP 33, refilling branded LPG cylinders without authority; and
under delivery or under filling of LPG cylinders.
> On the same day of the filing of the application for search
warrants. The NBI served the warrants the next day resulting
in the seizure of several items from Omnis premises.
> Assistant City Prosecutor, finding probable cause to charge
petitioners with violations of pertinent sections of BP 33.
Debunking petitioners contention that the branded LPG
cylinders are already owned by consumers who are free to do
with them as they please, the law is clear that the stamped
markings on the LPG cylinders show who are the real owners
thereof and they cannot be refilled sans authority from
Pilipinas Shell, Petron or Total, as the case may be.
> Petitioners appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Justice.
Reversing and setting aside the Joint Resolution of the Office
of the Chief State Prosecutor, being an isolated case, it ruled
that there was no showing of a clear pattern of deliberate
underfilling.
> A petition for certiorari was filed (by public respondent Agent
De Jemil) to CA under Rule 65 and reinstated the resolutions
of the Office of the Secretary of Justice. CA found strong
probable violation of refilling of another companys or firms
cylinders without such companys or firms written
authorization.
ISSUE:
RULING:
YES. For one, while it is the consistent principle in
this jurisdiction that the determination of probable cause
is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor and,
ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the
filing of the corresponding information or move for the
dismissal of the case; such determination is subject to
judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of
discretion tainted the determination.
For another, there is no question that the Secretary of Justice
is an alter ego of the President who may opt to exercise or not
to exercise his or her power of review over the formers
determination in criminal investigation cases. As aptly noted by
Agent De Jemil, the determination of probable cause by the
Secretary of Justice is, under the doctrine of qualified political
agency, presumably that of the Chief Executive unless
disapproved or reprobated by the latter.
The findings of the Justice Secretary
through a petition for certiorari under
the allegation that he acted with
discretion. This remedy is available
party.
may be reviewed
Rule 65 based on
grave abuse of
to the aggrieved