Dimatulac vs.

Villon

FACTS: On November 1993, Yabuts, including Mayor Santiago and Danny and Arding went to the Police
Station in Masantol to ask for the house of the Mayor, after that, they also inquired whether SPO3
Dimatulac was on duty. They immediately left after they were told that he was at home. After reaching
the house of Dimatulac, the people in the military truck alighted the same and surrounded the
Dimatulac's house. They were welcomed by Dimatulac. They told him to come down from his house and
apologize to the Mayor, after acceding to go down, he was shot in the abdomen by Danny and the latter
immediately left. A complaint for murder was filed before MCTC Macabebe-Masantol. After finding
probable cause, warrants of arrest were issued by Judge David with no bail recomended and all the
accused were ordered to file their counter-affidavits. Only 2 were arrested and only 1 filed a counter-
affidavit. Thereafter, Asst. Provincial Prosec. Alfonso-Flores conducted a reinvestigation where she
concluded that the offense was homicide and not murder due to the lack of the second requisite of
treachery (means of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted). Before the information for
homicide was filed, herein complainants appealed the resolution to the DOJ Secretary. However,
Provincial Prosec. Manarag released Magat, David, Mandap and Naguit. The cash bonds of the Yabuts
was approved by Judge Roura and recalled the warrants of arrest against them. A motion to issue hold
departure order and an urgent motion to defer proceedings was filed by the Priv. Prosec. The former
was defered and the latter motion was denied. The arraignment of the accused were also set. A motion
to inhibit Judge Roura was filed for setting the arraignment of the accused pending the appeal before
the DOJ which was oppsed by Public Prosec. Datu. Judge Roura was replaced with Judge Villon who
ordered for the resetting of the arraignment. The Yabuts entered a plea of not guilty. Alarmed by the
said arraignmnet, herein petitioners then filed an Urgent Motion to set aside the arraignment which was
denied by Judge Villon.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion in defering resolution of the motion
for a hold departure order

RULING: Yes. To hold that arraignment is a prerequisite to the issuance of a hold departure order could
obviously defeat the purpose of said order. Since the accused were out on bail, the motion should have
been granted because the accused could have easily left the country. Judge Roura also should have
taken into consideration the pending appeal with the DOJ when he set the accused for arraignment.
When the case was transferred to Judge Villon, he also acted with deliberate dispatch and set the
accused for arraignment. Had he perused the records with due diligence, he would have noticed the pe