Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Rule 112
Case Rule 112
ISSUE:
Whether or not the conduct of a preliminary investigation is an
executive function.
G.R. No. 175887 an appeal or petition for review with the OP and not before the
November 24, 2010 DOJ.
HEIRS OF THE LATE NESTOR TRIA, Petitioners,
vs. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and also a
ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS, Respondent. Supplemental Pleading and Submission of Newly Discovered
Evidence.
FACTS:
On May 22, 1998, at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning at Engr. Presidential Assistant granted respondent’s motion for
Nestor Tria, Regional Director of the Department of Public Works reconsideration and reversed the DOJ resolutions. Accordingly,
and Highways (DPWH), Region V and concurrently Officer-In- the case against respondent was dismissed for insufficiency of
Charge of the 2nd Engineering District of Camarines Sur, was evidence. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was
shot by a gunman while waiting to board his flight to Manila. denied by the OP.
He was brought to a hospital but died the following day from the The petitioner filed a petition before the CA but was denied.
lone gunshot wound on his nape. Hence this petition.
During the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of Prosecutors control and direct the prosecution of criminal
the Provincial Prosecutor, respondent filed her Counter-Affidavit offenses, including the conduct of preliminary investigation,
denying that she was in anyway involved with the killing of Engr. subject to review by the Secretary of Justice.
Tria.
The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur issued whether the executive determination was done without or in
a resolution directing the filing of an information for murder excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
against Aclan and Ona but dismissing the case for insufficiency Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review
of evidence as against herein respondent, Atty. Epifania Obias. unless made with grave abuse.
Petitioners appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) assailing
the Provincial Prosecutor’s order to dismiss the charge against
respondent.
ISSUE:
WON Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the procedure.
HELD:
If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall be
immediately arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty, he shall
forthwith be sentenced.
She noticed appellant standing five steps away from the open Since the records do not show whether the accused-appellant
door of her house and holding a sumpak, a homemade shotgun. asked for preliminary investigation after the case had been filed
in court, as in fact, the accused-appellant signified his readiness
Seized with fear, she closed the door. After a few moments, she to be arraigned, the Court can only conclude that he waived his
heard a burst of gunfire. This was followed by cries of pain from right to have a preliminary investigation, when he did in fact
her children inside the house. Seeing her children bloodied, she pleaded “Not Guilty” upon his arraignment.
immediately went outside and shouted for help. As she did so,
she saw appellant running away, carrying the sumpak.
ISSUE:
WON the trial court committed an error in finding that the prosecution
was able to prove guilt of the defendant-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt in spite of the fact that there was allegedly no preliminary
investigation, and no sufficient evidence exists proving his guilt.
HELD:
This is not true.
Under said Section 7, Rule 112, the prosecuting officer can file
the information in Court without a preliminary investigation, which
was done in the accused-appellant’s case.