NAME

Rule 110 / Section 16/ Intervention by offended party / Review by the Department of Justice
Department of Justice vs. Alaon

April 23, 2014 G.R. No. 189595 Ponente: Perez

RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

 A letter of appeal to the SoJ by complainant’s mother is treated as a petition for review
from the provincial prosecutor’s resolution
 It is not a grave abuse of discretion for such, as the SoJ has the power of review over the
actions of his subordinates.
Relevant Provisions / Concept / Doctrines
1. The Secretary of Justice has the power fo review over the actions of his subordinates. It is
incompassed in the SoJ’s authority of supervision and control over the bureaus, offices and
agencies under him, subject only to guidelines. [Chapter 7, Section 38, paragraph 1 of EO 292
(Admin Code of 1987) defines the administrative relationship that is supervision and control]
FACTS
 Complaint for rape was filed against respondent Alaon. He denied the charges.
 Provincial Prosecution Office of Daet, Cam Norte found probable cause
o Offense was downgraded (upon motion for reconsideration) by same office to acts of
lasciviousness
o Information on said charges was filed
 SOJ, acting on a letter from the victim’s mother, directed Provincial Prosecutor to:
o Forward records of case for review;
o Defer filing of acts of lasciviousness
 Prosecutor Estrellado sent a letter withdrawing the Information
o Mistakenly because he thought Alaon filed petition for review
o Judge Intia found probable cause for warrant of arrest, but held in abeyance issuance of
warrant pending resolution of “petition for review”. Intia requested copy of petition for
review.
o RTC suspends the proceedings
 Upon Prosecutor’s explanation of his mistaken assumption that there was a petition for review,
Alaon moves for arraignment, invoking right to speedy trial. It is granted
 Prosec files motion to withdraw, based on the case pending review of DOJ and having been
directed to do so.
o Denied by RTC, as not being a valid ground. MR denied, trial ensues.
 DOJ reinstates previous charges of rape, directs filing of Information for rape.
o Alaon files petition for certiorari with CA, assailing DOJ resolution for grave abuse of
discretion. Granted by CA.
 Letter by victim’s mother does not comply with the requirements of a petition for
review at the preliminary investigation stage
 Alaon was deprived of right to procedural due process, as he was not given
opportunity to be heard by filing a comment/opposition
ISSUE
Did the Secretary commit grave abuse of discretion in treating the letter-request as an appeal?
RULING
No. The Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he took cognizance of the letter and
treated it as a petition for review from the provincial prosecutor’s resolution.
- There was in fact an appeal from the prosecutor’s resolution, although not as described in the National
Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal.
- There was an appeal that the SoJ had power to act upon.
- What was done was not a motu propio review.

However, Alaon was deprived of his right to procedural due process, as he was not given an opportunity to be
heard on the letter-appeal of private complainant’s mother.
1
 - Even at the stage of petition for review before the SoJ, the requirements for substantive and procedural
due process do not abate.
- It is for this reason that CA ruling is affirmed.
- DOJ asserts that Alaon knew of the letter-appeal. This does not equate to compliance with procedural due
process.