Balindong v. Limbona
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A shooting incident occurred during the national and local elections of May 11, 1998, in Poblacion Malabang, Lanao del Sur, resulting in two deaths and two serious injuries. The incident stemmed from a heated exchange between the group of Mayoralty candidate Anwar Berua Balindong, his sons Amer Oden Balindong and Ali Balindong, Chief of Police Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota, and PO1 Kennedy Balindong, and the group of another candidate, Atty. Cabi Marohom. As Marohom's group attempted to leave, the Balindong group allegedly fired indiscriminately, killing Dante Limbona and Ante Magindanao, and wounding Azis Panda and Kiri Hadji Salic. The victims were unarmed. Procedural History: An initial investigation by Prosecutor Ringcar Pinote found probable cause for Double Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder, leading to an Information filed in the RTC of Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The petitioners moved for a reinvestigation, which was granted, and the case was returned to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office. A subsequent Resolution modified the charges to double homicide with multiple frustrated homicide against some petitioners and dropped charges against others. The private respondent filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which modified the charges again, directing the filing of informations for murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder against all private petitioners. After several motions for reconsideration and venue transfers, the DOJ, under Secretary Hernando Perez, reversed its prior resolutions and directed the filing of an amended information for double homicide with multiple frustrated homicide against Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota, and PO1 Kennedy Balindong, dropping the charges against Amer Oden Balindong and Ali S. Balindong. The private respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the DOJ's resolution and reinstated the earlier DOJ resolutions. The RTC of Quezon City subsequently ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' decision. They argued that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in entertaining a third motion for reconsideration, asserting the power to act in the interests of justice and citing instances where the Supreme Court entertained multiple motions for reconsideration. They also contended that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the RTC of Cagayan de Oro retained jurisdiction after the venue had been transferred to Quezon City, and that the Secretary of Justice could not implicitly suspend DOJ procedural rules. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision, lifting the temporary restraining order, and ordering the RTC of Quezon City to implement the issuance of warrants of arrest.
Issue(s)
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining a third motion for reconsideration despite DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 13. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the DOJ Resolution dated March 12, 2001. Whether the venue transfer to Quezon City divested the RTC of Cagayan de Oro of jurisdiction to admit the amended information. Whether the petitioners' arguments regarding the qualification of the crime from homicide to murder are ripe for determination at this stage.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2003, which annulled the DOJ Resolution dated March 12, 2001, and reinstated the DOJ Resolutions issued on August 4, 1999, December 1, 1999, and March 16, 2000, is AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on February 18, 2004, is lifted, and the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219, is ORDERED to implement its Resolution dated December 3, 2003, relative to the issuance of warrants of arrest against all the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Secretary of Justice's authority to entertain a third motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the third motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 13, explicitly states that no second or further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained, and this is a mandatory provision. The Court reiterated that the common law of justice and equity cannot prevail over a positive provision of law. While the Supreme Court may, in exceptional circumstances, grant second motions for reconsideration, this power is not without limitation and does not extend to the Secretary of Justice in this context. The grounds raised in the third motion were a mere rehash of previously denied arguments, further supporting the finding of grave abuse of discretion. On the Court of Appeals' error in reversing the DOJ Resolution: The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision. The CA correctly identified the Secretary of Justice's actions as constituting grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the clear mandate of DOJ Circular No. 70 and by entertaining a third motion for reconsideration on issues already passed upon. The CA's reversal was based on the Secretary of Justice's patent error in relying on general principles of justice and equity when a specific rule of procedure was squarely applicable. The Court agreed that this action resulted in injustice to the complainants and the People of the Philippines. On the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro: The Supreme Court clarified that the RTC of Cagayan de Oro had been divested of jurisdiction when the Supreme Court transferred the venue to Quezon City via its Resolution dated July 11, 2000. The physical location of the records is not determinative of jurisdiction. Therefore, the RTC of Cagayan de Oro had no authority to admit the amended information on March 19, 2001, as jurisdiction had already been definitively transferred to the trial courts in Quezon City. The petitioners' argument that the respondent's failure to seek reconsideration of the Cagayan de Oro RTC's order constituted consent was deemed absurd and a patent error. On the prematurity of arguments regarding the qualification of the crime: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' arguments concerning the absence of circumstances qualifying the crime from homicide to murder were evidentiary matters that had yet to be heard in a full-blown trial. This Court is not a trier of facts, and it is premature to argue such matters when the controversy is still centered on the determination of the appropriate crime to be charged. The Court's role at this stage is to resolve the procedural issue of the appropriate charges, not to delve into the merits of the evidence for murder versus homicide.
Main Doctrine
The Secretary of Justice cannot entertain a third motion for reconsideration if DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 13, explicitly prohibits it, as this constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The common law of justice and equity cannot prevail over a positive provision of law. Furthermore, the physical location of case records does not determine jurisdiction; the transfer of venue by the Supreme Court is controlling.