Dumlao v. Ponferrada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of May 8, 1995, following local elections, seven relatives of the petitioners were murdered in Brgy. Pattao, Buguey, Cagayan. Two witnesses claimed to have seen private respondents Roy Flores, Godofredo Flores, and Quirino Cabeza flag down the victims' jeepney and subsequently fire upon its passengers. The witnesses also alleged overhearing private respondents Atty. Franklin Tamargo and Atty. Manuel Molina instructing Roy Flores to kill the passengers. The private respondents denied these accusations, asserting they were at Roy Flores' house during the incident and that the witnesses, being supporters of a political rival, fabricated the story. Corroborating witnesses for the private respondents stated they were also at Roy Flores' house during the shootings. Procedural History: A preliminary investigation found probable cause to charge the private respondents with multiple murder, leading to the filing of Informations in the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Acting DOJ Secretary reversed the prosecutor's resolution and directed the withdrawal of the charges. The new DOJ Secretary affirmed this directive. Consequently, a motion to withdraw the Informations was filed in the RTC of Manila, Branch 41, where the cases were re-docketed. The presiding judge granted the motion, approving the withdrawal and dismissing the cases. The Petition: This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul the RTC order approving the withdrawal of the Informations. The petitioners argue that the Secretary of Justice could no longer review the public prosecutor's resolution after the cases were filed in court, citing the case of Crespo v. Mogul. They contend that once a case is filed, its disposition rests solely on the court's discretion. The petition specifically challenges the authority of the Justice Secretary to review and direct the withdrawal of charges after they have been lodged with the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Secretary of Justice can still review a resolution of a public prosecutor and direct the withdrawal of Informations after they have been filed in court. Whether Judge Ponferrada committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to withdraw the charges.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The order of Judge Rodolfo Ponferrada approving the withdrawal of the Informations is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the power of the Secretary of Justice to review and direct withdrawal of Informations: The Court reiterated that under RA 5180, in connection with Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, and Department Circular No. 70, the Secretary of Justice is vested with the power to review resolutions of prosecutors and may direct the dismissal or withdrawal of a complaint or information. Contrary to petitioners' theory, the filing of a complaint or information in court does not divest the Secretary of Justice of this review power. The case of Crespo v. Mogul was clarified to mean that while the Secretary of Justice can direct the withdrawal of a case, he cannot impose his will on the court; the ultimate disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. The prosecutor, acting under the Secretary of Justice's directive, may file a motion to withdraw, but the court has the option to grant or deny it. On whether Judge Ponferrada committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Ponferrada. The records showed that before granting the motion to withdraw, the judge required the parties to file their respective memoranda or comments. He conducted his own assessment and evaluation of the evidence on record. Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that he blindly adopted the position of the Secretary of Justice or that he had nothing before him to consider. His decision to grant the motion was based on his own evaluation that the prosecution's evidence did not constitute probable cause, a conclusion he reached after considering the evidence and the prosecution's own assessment of its weakness.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a complaint or information in court does not prevent the Secretary of Justice from exercising his review power, nor can such complaint or information deter him from ordering the withdrawal of the case. However, the court retains the ultimate discretion to grant or deny a motion to dismiss filed by the prosecutor.