7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

1/26

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 127107 October 12, 1998

PETER PAUL DIMATULAC a! "ERONICA DIMATULAC, petitioners,

vs.

#ON. SESINANDO "ILLON $ %$& ca'ac$t( a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o t%e Re)$oa- Tr$a- Co+rt o

Pa'a)a, /rac% #ON. TEO3ISTO GUINGONA, $ %$& ca'ac$t( a& Secretar( o *+&t$ce

MA4OR SANTIAGO 4A/UT, SER"ILLANO 4A/UT, MARTIN 4A/UT a! 3ORTUNATO

MALLARI, respondents.

DA"IDE, *R., J.:

The issues raised b petitioners in their Me!orandu!1and b the Office of the Solicitor "eneral in its

#o!!ent2in this special civil action forcertiorari, prohibition andmandamusunder Rule $% of the Rules

of #ourt filed b petitioners, children of the deceased Police Officer & 'PO&( Vir)ilio Di!atulac of

Masantol, Pa!pan)a, !a be su!!ari*ed as follo+s

-. /0T/0R T/0 OFFI#0 OF T/0 PROVIN#I-1 PROS0#2TOR

#OMMITT0D "R-V0 -32S0 OF DIS#R0TION IN '4( "IVIN" D20

#O2RS0 TO T/0 MOTION FOR R0INV0STI"-TION 35 PRIV-T0

R0SPOND0NTS -"-INST /OM -RR-NTS OF -RR0ST

0R0 ISS20D 32T /O /-D NOT 50T 300N 3RO2"/T INTO

T/0 #2STOD5 Of T/0 1-6 and '7( FI1IN" T/0 INFORM-TION

FOR /OMI#ID0 D0SPIT0 8NO10D"0 OF T/0 -PP0-1 FROM

S-ID PROS0#2TOR9S R0SO12TION TO T/0 OFFI#0 OF T/0

S0#R0T-R5 OF :2STI#0.

3. /0T/0R P231I# R0SPOND0NT :2D"0 -#T0D IN 0;#0SS

OF :2RISDI#TION IN PRO#00DIN" IT/ T/0 -RR-I"NM0NT

-ND IN D0N5IN" P0TITION0RS9 MOTIONS TO S0T -SID0

-RR-I"NM0NT -ND R0#ONSID0R-TION T/0R0OF D0SPIT0

/IS 8NO10D"0 OF T/0 P0ND0N#5 OF T/0 -PP0-1 -ND T/0

S23MISSION OF VIT-1 0VID0N#0 TO PROV0 T/-T M2RD0R

-ND NOT /OMI#ID0 -S #OMMITT0D 35 T/0 -##2S0D.

#. /0T/0R P231I# R0SPOND0NT S0#R0T-R5 OF :2STI#0

#OMMITT0D "R-V0 -32S0 OF DIS#R0TION IN

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

2/26

R0#ONSID0RIN" /IS ORD0R FINDIN" T/-T T/0 #RIM0

#OMMITT0D -S M2RD0R -ND DIR0#TIN" T/0 PROVIN#I-1

PROS0#2TOR TO -M0ND T/0 INFORM-TION FROM /OMI#ID0

TO M2RD0R.

The records and the pleadin)s of the parties disclose the antecedents.

On & Nove!ber 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

3/26

-Eccused 5abut brothers '8ati and 3ill( stron)l su))ested to Vir)ilio Di!atulac to

)o do+n to see the Maor outside in front of his house to sa sorr.

Ehen Vir)ilio Di!atulac +ent do+n his house, suddenl aE )un shot +as heard and

then, the son of Vir)ilio Di!atulac, Peter Paul, started to shout the follo+in) +ords

>hat did ou do to ! fatherG>

One of the !en of Maor >Docsa> 5abut shot Vir)ilio Di!atulac, and as a

conseCuence, he died6 and before he eBpired, he left a din) declaration pointin) to

the )roup of Maor >Docsa> 5abut as the one responsible.

That ri)ht after Vir)ilio Di!atulac +as shot, accused >Docsa> 5abut ordered his !en

to )o on board the truc@ and i!!ediatel left a+a leavin) Vir)ilio Di!atulac

bleedin) and as@in) for help.

On their +a ho!e to Minalin, accused Santia)o >Docsa> 5abut )ave !one to

accused :ohn Doe Dan?Dann and Francisco >3o> 5a!bao +as as@ed to brin) theaccused :ohn Doe to Nueva 0ciHa +hich he did.

Further, accused Santia)o >Docsa> 5abut told his )roup to den that the ever +ent

to Masantol.

The court, after having conducted preliminary examination on the complainant and

the witnesses presented, [is] satisfied that there is a [sic] reasonable ground to

believe that the crime of murder was committed and that the accused in conspiring

and confederating with one another are probably guilty thereof.

Circumstantial evidence strongly shows the presence of conspiracy.

That in order not to frustrate the ends of Hustice, +arrants of arrest +ere issued

a)ainst Santia)o 5abut, Martin 5abut, Servillano 5abut, Francisco 5a!bao, -velino

David, #asti David, #ato Na)uit, Fortunato Mallari, 3o dela #ru*, 1ito Miranda and

:uan Ma)at +ith no bail reco!!ended.

/o+ever, +ith respect to accused Dan?Dann and 8oan)?-rdin), the court directed

the police authorities to furnish the court aE description personae of the accused for

the purpose of issuin) the needed +arrant of arrest.

The accused +ere furnish sicE copies of the co!plaint and affidavits of +itnesses forthe! to file their counter=affidavits in accordance to sicE la+.

-s of this date, onl accused Francisco >3o> 5a!bao filed his counter=affidavit and

all the others +aived the filin) of the sa!e.

- close evaluation of the evidence sub!itted b the accused Francisco 5a!bao

+hich the court finds it sicE strai)htfor+ard and !ore or less credible and see!s to

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

4/26

be consistent +ith truth, hu!an nature and theE natural course of thin)s and lac@ of

!otives sicE, the evidence of )uilt a)ainst hi! is rather +ea@ co!pared toE the

others, +hich is +hE the court reco!!ends a cash bond of P%A,AAA.AA for his

provisional libert, and the court9s previous order of no bail for said accused is hereb

reconsidered.

/0R0FOR0, pre!ises considered, the #ler@ of #ourt is directed to for+ard he

entire records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pa!pan)a for

further action, to)ether +ith the bodies of accused Francisco 5a!bao and :uan

Ma)at to be re!anded to the provincial :ail of Pa!pan)a. 'e!phasis supplied(

In a s+orn state!ent,6petitioner Peter Paul Di!atulac narrated that Maor Santia)o 5abut,

acco!panied b a nu!ber of bod)uards, +ent to the residence of PO& Vir)ilio Di!atulac to tal@ about a

proble! bet+een the Maor and Peter Paul9s uncle, :un Di!atulac. Vir)ilio +ar!l +elco!ed the )roup

and even prepared coffee for the!. Servillano and Martin 5abut told Vir)ilio to co!e do+n fro! his house

and apolo)i*e to the Maor, but hardl had Vir)ilio descended +hen Peter Paul heard a )unshot. hile

Peter Paul did not see +ho fired the shot, he +as sure it +as one of Maor 5abut9s co!panions. Peter

Paul opined that his father +as @illed because the latter spo@e to the people of Minalin, Pa!pan)a,

a)ainst the Maor, Peter Paul added in a supple!ental state!ent 'Suso) na Salasa( 7that he heard

Maor 5abut order Vir)ilio @illed.

It his Sinumpaang Salaysay,8Police Officer 1eopoldo Soriano of the Masantol Municipal Police Station

in Masantol, Pa!pan)a, declared that on & Nove!ber 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

5/26

In the instant case, the presence of the first reCuisite +as clearl established b the

evidence, such that the attac@ upon the victi! +hile descendin) the stairs +as so

sudden and uneBpected as to render hi! no opportunit to defend hi!self or to

retaliate. /o+ever, the circu!stances, as portraed b +itness Peter Paul Di!atulac,

ne)ate the presence of the second reCuisite. -ccordin) to the said +itness, the victi!

+as alread descendin) +hen Maor 5abut co!!anded the assailant to shoot hi!,and i!!ediatel thereafter, he heard the )unshot. This +ould therefore sho+ that the

assailant did not consciousl adopt the position of the victi! at the ti!e he fired the

fatal shot. The co!!and of Maor 5abut to shoot ca!e so sudden as to afford no

opportunit for the assailant to choose the !eans or !ethod of attac@. The act of

Maor 5abut in )ivin) the co!!and to shoot further bolstersE the fact that the

conspirator did not concert the !eans and !ethod of attac@ nor the !anner thereof.

Other+ise there +ould have been no necessit for hi! to )ive the order to the

assailant. The !ethod and !anner of attac@ +as adopted b the assailant at the spur

of the !o!ent and the vulnerable position of the victi! +as not deliberatel and

consciousl adopted. Treacher therefore could not be appreciated and the cri!e

reasonabl believedE to have been co!!itted is /o!icide as no circu!stance +ouldCualif the @illin) to !urder.

-lfonso=Flores then ruled

/0R0FOR0, in vie+ of the fore)oin), it is hereb reco!!ended that

4. -n infor!ation be filed +ith the proper court

char)in) Santia)o, Servillano and Martin all

surna!ed 5abut, and one :ohn Doe aliasDann as

conspirators in the cri!e of /o!icide6

7. The case be dis!issed a)ainst accused 0velino

David, :ustino Mandap a.@.a. #asti David, Francisco

5a!bao, :uan Ma)at, -rturo Na)uit, 3ladi!ir

Di!atulac, Fortunato Mallari, -niano Ma)nae,

"ilberto Malabanan, :esus dela #ru* and :oselito

Miranda.

3ail of P7A,AAA.AA for each of the accused is li@e+ise reco!!ended.

The Resolution discloses that -lfonso=Flores conducted a hearin) on 44 :anuar 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

6/26

J2-1IF5 T/0 #RIM0 TO M2RD0R, 32T 1I80IS0 0RR0D IN

NOT -PPR0#I-TIN" T/0 PR0S0N#0 OF OT/0R J2-1IF5IN"

#IR#2MST-N#0S, TO IT

'-( T/-T T/0 -##2S0D #OMMITT0D T/0 #RIM0

IT/ T/0 -ID OF -RM0D M0N -ND IT/ T/02S0 OF - P0RSON TO INS2R0 OR -FFORD

IMP2NIT56

'3( T/-T T/0 #RIM0 -S #OMMITT0D IN

#ONSID0R-TION OF - PRI#0, R0-RD, OR

PROMIS06

'#( T/-T T/0 #RIM0 -S #OMMITT0D ON T/0

O##-SION OF - D0STR2#TIV0 #5#1ON0, /0N

T/0 S2P0R=T5P/OON >ROSIN"> -S R-"IN"

ON NOV0M30R &, 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

7/26

On 7$ Februar 4Dann Manalili> and doc@eted

as #ri!inal #ase No.

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

8/26

In a Repl 21to the opposition, the private prosecution, citin) Section 7A of Rule 44 of the Rules of

#ourt, insisted on the need for a hold=departure order a)ainst the accused6 ar)ued that the accused9s

ri)ht to a speed trial +ould not be i!paired because the appeal to the Secretar of :ustice +as filed

pursuant to Depart!ent Order No. 77& of the DO: and there +as clear and convincin) proof that the

@illin) +as co!!itted +ith treacher and other Cualifin) circu!stances not absorbed in treacher6 and

contended that the accused9s invocation of the ri)ht to a speed trial +as inconsistent +ith their filin) of

various dilator !otions durin) the preli!inar investi)ation. The 5-32Ts filed a ReHoinder 22to this

Opposition.

On 7$ March 4 but denied the Motion to

Defer Proceedin)s as he found no co!pellin) reason therefor, considerin) that althou)h the appeal

+as filed on 7& Februar 4 :ud)e Roura also set the arrai)n!ent of

the accused on 47 -pril 4nothin) in the records of the case that +ould Cualif the case into Murder.> -t the sa!e ti!e,

petitioners filed a petition for prohibition 26+ith the #ourt of -ppeals doc@eted therein as #-=".R. SP No.

A&

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

9/26

b. Sinu!paan) Salasa of Vladi!ir 5u!ul Di!atulac.

c. #ounter=-ffidavit of Francisco I. 5a!bao.

d. #ounter=-ffidavit of SPO7 Fortunato Mallari.

e. Sinu!paan) Salasa of -niano Ma)nae.

f. Sinu!paan) Salasa of 1eopoldo Soriano.

). Transcript of Steno)raphic Notes of the Preli!inar Investi)ation of

#ri!inal #ase No. /o+ever, the #ourt of -ppeals >deferred action> on the praer for a te!porar

restrainin) order >until after the reCuired co!!ent +asE sub!itted.>

On & Ma 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

10/26

the reCuired co!!ent is sub!itted b the respondent6> stressed that the filin) of the infor!ation for the

lesser offense of ho!icide +as >clearl unHust and contrar to la+ in vie+ of the unCuestionable

attendance of circu!stances Cualifin) the @illin) to !urder6> and asserted that a nu!ber of Supre!e

#ourt decisions supported suspension of the proceedin)s in vie+ of the pendenc of their appeal before

the DO:.

On &4 Ma 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

11/26

-nent the alle)ed participation of respondents Fortunato Mallari and Francisco

5a!bao, +e find sufficient evidence a)ainst Mallari as part of the conspirac but not

a)ainst 5a!bao. -s can be )leaned fro! the s+orn=state!ent of 5a!bao, +hich

appears to be credible, Mallari tried also to persuade the victi! to )o +ith the!,

usin) as a reason that he 'victi!( +as bein) invited b "eneral Ventura. /e +as also

seen trin) to fiB the )un +hich +as used in @illin) the victi!. These actuations areinconsistent +ith the clai! that his presence at the cri!e scene +as !erel passive.

On the other hand, +e find credible the version and eBplanation of 5a!bao. Indeed,

under the obtainin) circu!stances, 5a!bao had no other option but to accede to the

reCuest of Maor 5abut to provide transportation to the assailant. There bein) an

actual dan)er to his life then, and havin) acted under the i!pulse of an

uncontrollable fear, reason dictates that he should be freed fro! cri!inal liabilit. 58

The 5-32Ts !oved to reconsider the resolution, 59citin) Section of >-d!inistrative?-d!inistration

Order No. 77& of the DO:.> 0

In an-x0arteManifestation 1dated 74 :une 4 In support of said praer, the Solicitor "eneral ar)ued

7. There is !erit to the cause of petitioners. If the Secretar of :ustice

+ould find their -ppeal !eritorious, the Provincial Prosecutor +ould

be directed to up)rade the Infor!ation to Murder and eBtre!e

preHudice if not )ross inHustice +ould thereb have been avoided.

&. #onseCuentl, the undersi)ned counsel interpose no obHection to

the issuance of a +rit of prohibition enHoinin) respondent :ud)e fro!

holdin) further proceedin)s in #ri!inal #ase No.

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

12/26

ho!icide, as sho+n b a cop of the court order dated Ma 7A, 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

13/26

On 7L Dece!ber 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

14/26

'L( The Provincial Prosecutor did not co!pl +ith the resolution of K

:une 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

15/26

Finall, private respondents stress the fact that petitioners never appealed the +ithdra+al b the

public prosecutor of the private prosecutor9s authorit to handle the case.

In its co!!ent for the public respondents, the Office of the Solicitor "eneral 'OS"( pras that the

petition be denied because 'a( in accordance +ith Section of DO: Order No. 77&, upon

arrai)n!ent of the accused, the appeal to the Secretar of :ustice shall be dis!issedmotu proprio6'b( the filin) of the infor!ation for ho!icide +as in co!pliance +ith the directive under Section '7(,

D.O. No. 77&, i.e., an appeal or !otion for reinvesti)ation fro! a resolution findin) probable cause

shall not hold the filin) of the infor!ation in court6 'c( the trial court even acco!!odated petitioners

b initiall deferrin) arrai)n!ent pendin) resolution b the #ourt of -ppeals of the petition for

prohibition, and since said #ourt did not issue an restrainin) order, arrai)n!ent +as properl had6

and 'd( reliance on /obertsis !isplaced, as there, accused Roberts and others had not been

arrai)ned and respondent :ud)e had ordered the indefinite postpone!ent of the arrai)n!ent

pendin) resolution of their petitions before the #ourt of -ppeals and the Supre!e #ourt.

e no+ consider the issues enu!erated at the outset of thisponencia.

Plainl, the proceedin)s belo+ +ere replete +ith procedural irre)ularities +hich lead us to conclude

that so!ethin) had )one a+r in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pa!pan)a resultin) in

!anifest advanta)e to the accused, !ore particularl the 5-32Ts, and )rave preHudice to the State

and to private co!plainants, herein petitioners.

First, +arrants for the arrest of the 5-32Ts +ere issued b the M#T#, +ith no bail reco!!ended for

their te!porar libert. /o+ever, for one reason or another undisclosed in the record, the 5-32Ts

+ere not arrested6 neither did the surrender. /ence, the +ere never brou)ht into the custod of the

la+. 5et, -sst. Provincial Fiscal -lfonso Rees, eithermotu proprioor upon !otion of the 5-32Ts,

conducted a reinvesti)ation. Since said accused +ereat large, -lfonso=Rees should not have done

so. hile it !a be true that under the second para)raph of Section %, Rule 447 of the Rules of#ourt, the provincial prosecutor !a disa)ree +ith the findin)s of the Hud)e +ho conducted the

preli!inar investi)ation, as here, this difference of opinion !ust be on the basis of the revie+ of the

record and evidence trans!itted b the Hud)e. ere that all she did, as she had no other option

under the circu!stance, she +as +ithout an other choice but to sustain the M#T# since the

5-32Ts and all other accused, eBcept Francisco 5a!bao, +aived the filin) of their counter=

affidavits. Then, further stretchin) her !a)nani!it in favor of the accused, -lfonso=Rees allo+ed

the 5-32Ts to sub!it their counter=affidavits +ithout first de!andin) that the surrender because of

the standin) +arrants of arrest a)ainst the!. In short, -lfonso=Rees allo+ed the 5-32Ts to !a@e a

!oc@er of the la+ in order that the )ain their provisional libert pendin) trial and be char)ed +ith

the lesser offense of ho!icide.

Second, -lfonso=Rees reco!!ended a bond of onl P7A,AAA.AA for the 5-32Ts and co=accused

>Dann,> despite the fact that the +ere char)ed +ith ho!icide and the +ere, at the ti!e, fu)itives

fro! Hustice for havin) avoided service of the +arrant of arrest issued b the M#T# and havin) failed

to voluntaril surrender.

Third, -lfonso=Rees +as full a+are of the private prosecution9s appeal to the DO: fro! her

resolution. She could not have been i)norant of the fact that the appeal vi)orousl assailed her

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

16/26

findin) that there +as no Cualifin) circu!stance attendin) the @illin), and that the private

prosecution had convincin) ar)u!ents to support the appeal. The subseCuent resolution of the

Secretar of :ustice confir!ed the correctness of the private prosecution9s stand and eBposed the

blatant errors of -lfonso=Rees.

Fourth, despite the pendenc of the appeal, -lfonso=Rees filed the Infor!ation for ho!icide on 7LFebruar 4 si!pl because the private prosecution had as@ed for the inhibition of :ud)e Roura.

Said prosecutor for)ot that since the offended parties here had not +aived the civil action nor

eBpressl reserved their ri)ht to institute it separatel fro! the cri!inal action, then the had the ri)ht

to intervene in the cri!inal case pursuant to Section 4$ of Rule 4lA of the Rules of #ourt.

It is undebatable that petitioners had the ri)ht to appeal to the DO: fro! the resolution of -lfonso=

Flores. The last para)raph of Section of Rule 447 of the Rules of #ourt provides

If upon petition b a proper part, the Secretar of :ustice reverses the resolution of

the provincial or cit fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal

concerned to file the correspondin) infor!ation +ithout conductin) anotherpreli!inar investi)ation or to dis!iss or !ove for the dis!issal of the co!plaint or

infor!ation.

It is clear fro! the above, that theproper partyreferred to therein could be either the

offended part or the accused.

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

17/26

More i!portantl, an appeal to the DO: is an invocation of the Secretar9s po+er of control over

prosecutors. Thus, in4edesma v. Court of *ppeals, 16+e e!phaticall held

Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subHect to appeal to the secretar of

Hustice +ho, under the Revised -d!inistrative #ode, 62eBercises the po+er of direct

control and supervision over said prosecutors6 and +ho, !a thus affir!, nullif, reverseor !odif their rulin)s.

Sec. &

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

18/26

such action or step as prescribed b la+ to !a@e the! perfor! such

duties. #ontrol, on the other hand, !eans the po+er of an officer to

alter or !odif or nullif or set aside +hat a subordinate officer had

done in the perfor!ance of his duties and to substitute the Hud)!ent

of the for!er for that of the latter.

Revie+ as an act of supervision and control b the Hustice secretar over the fiscals

and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of eBhaustion of ad!inistrative re!edies

+hich holds that !ista@es, abuses or ne)li)ence co!!itted in the initial steps of an

ad!inistrative activit or b an ad!inistrative a)enc should be corrected b hi)her

ad!inistrative authorities, and not directl b courts. -s a rule, onl after

ad!inistrative re!edies are eBhausted !a Hudicial recourse be allo+ed.

DO: Order No. 77& of &A :une 4 the co!plaint for !urder. -ccordin)l,

petitioners could file an appeal under said Section 4. To rule other+ise +ould be to forever bar

redress of a valid )rievance, especiall +here the investi)atin) prosecutor, as in this case,de!onstrated +hat unCuestionabl appeared to be un!iti)ated bias in favor of the accused. Section

4 is not to be literall applied in the sense that appeals b the offended parties are allo+ed onl in

cases of dis!issal of the co!plaint, other+ise the last para)raph of Section , Rule 447, Rules of

#ourt +ould be !eanin)less.

e cannot accept the vie+ of the Office of the Solicitor "eneral and private respondents that

Section 4 of DO: Depart!ent Order No. 77& is the controllin) rule6 hence, pursuant to the second

para)raph thereof the appeal of petitioners did not hold the filin) of the infor!ation. -s stated above,

Section applies even to appeals b the respondents or accused. The provision reads

Sec. . Non=appealable cases. 0Bceptions. No appeal !a be ta@en fro! aresolution of the #hief State Prosecutor?Re)ional State Prosecutor?Provincial or #it

Prosecutor findin) probable cause eBcept upon a sho+in) of !anifest error or )rave

abuse of discretion. Not+ithstandin) the sho+in) of !inifest error or )rave abuse of

discretion, no appeal shall be entertained where the appellant had already been

arraigned. 5f the appellant is arraigned during the pendency of the appeal, said

appeal shall be dis!issed motu propriob the Secretar of :ustice.

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

19/26

-n appeal?!otion for reinvesti)ation fro! a resolution findin) probable cause,

ho+ever, shall not hold the filin) of the infor!ation in court. 'e!phasis supplied(

The underlined portion indisputabl sho+s that the section refers to appeals b respondents or

accused. So +e held in&arcelo v. Court of

*ppeals,

65

that nothin) in the rulin) inCrespo v. &ogul,

6

reiterated in /oberts v. Court of*ppeals, 6forecloses the po+er of authorit of the Secretar of :ustice to revie+ resolutions of his

subordinates in cri!inal cases despite an infor!ation alread havin) been filed in court. The Secretar of

:ustice is onl enHoined to refrain, as far as practicable, fro! entertainin) a petition for revie+ or appeal

fro! the action of the prosecutor once a co!plaint or infor!ation is filed in court. In an case, the )rant of

a !otion to dis!iss, +hich the prosecution !a file after the Secretar of :ustice reverses an appealed

resolution, is subHect to the discretion of the court. In/oberts+e +ent further b sain) thatCrespocould

not have foreclosed said po+er or authorit of the Secretar of :ustice >+ithout doin) violence to, or

repealin), the last para)raph of Section , Rule 447 of the Rules of #ourt> +hich is Cuoted above.

Indubitabl then, there +as on the part of the public prosecution, indecent haste in the filin) of the

infor!ation for ho!icide, deprivin) the State and the offended parties of due process.

-s to the second issue, +e li@e+ise hold that :ud)e Roura acted +ith )rave abuse of discretion

+hen, in his order of 7$ March l and denied the !otion to defer

proceedin)s for the reason that the >private prosecution has not sho+n an indication that theE appeal

+as )iven due course b the Secretar of :ustice.> Neither rh!e nor reason or even lo)ic, supports the

)round for the defer!ent of the first !otion. Precisel, i!!ediate action thereon +as called for as the

accused +ere out on bail and, perforce, had all the opportunit to leave the countr if the +anted to. To

hold that arrai)n!ent is a prereCuisite to the issuance of a hold departure order could obviousl defeat

the purpose of said order. -s to the second !otion, :ud)e Roura +as full a+are of the pendenc of

petitioner9s appeal +ith the DO:, +hich +as filed as earl as 7& Februar 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

20/26

restrainin) order until after the reCuired co!!ent +as filed, +hich indicated a prima faciesho+in) of

!erit6 '%( the !otion to inhibit :ud)e Roura precisel because of his preHud)!ent that the cri!e

co!!itted +as !erel ho!icide6 '$( :ud)e Roura9s subseCuent inhibition6 'K( various pieces of

docu!entar evidence sub!itted b petitioners on &A -pril 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

21/26

as a priest, for the ad!inistration of Hustice is a@in to a reli)ious crusade. Thus, eBertin) the sa!e

devotion as a priest >in the perfor!ance of the !ost sacred cere!onies of reli)ious litur),> the Hud)e

!ust render service +ith i!partialit co!!ensurate +ith the public trust and confidence reposed in

hi!. 7-lthou)h the deter!ination of a cri!inal case before a Hud)e lies +ithin his eBclusive Hurisdiction

and co!petence, 76his discretion is not unfettered, but rather !ust be eBercised +ithin reasonable

confines. 77The Hud)e9s action !ust not i!pair the substantial ri)hts of the accused, nor the ri)ht of the

State and offended part to due process of la+. 78

Indeed, for Hustice to prevail, the scales !ust balance6 Hustice is not to be dispensed for the accused

alone. The interests of societ and the offended parties +hich have been +ron)ed !ust be eCuall

considered. Veril, a verdict of conviction is not necessaril a denial of Hustice6 and an acCuittal is not

necessaril a triu!ph of Hustice, for, to the societ offended and the part +ron)ed, it could also

!ean inHustice. 79:ustice then !ust be rendered even=handedl to both the accused, on one hand, and

the State and offended part, on the other.

In this case, the abuse of discretion on the part of the public prosecution and :ud)es Roura and

Villon +as )ross, )rave and palpable, denin), the State and the offended parties their da in court,

or in a constitutional sense,due process. -s to said Hud)es, such a!ounted to lac@ or eBcess of

Hurisdiction, or that their court +as ousted of the Hurisdiction in respect thereto, thereb nullifin) as

havin) been done +ithout Hurisdiction, the denial of the !otion to defer further hearin)s, the denial of

the !otion to reconsider such denial, the arrai)n!ent of the 5-32Ts and their plea of not )uilt.

These lapses b both the Hud)es and prosecutors concerned cannot be ta@en li)htl. e !ust

re!ed the situation before the onset of an irreversible effects. e thus have no other recourse, for

as #hief :ustice #laudio Teehan@ee pronounced inalman v. Sandiganbayan 80

The Supre!e #ourt cannot per!it such a sha! trial and verdict and travest of

Hustice to stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its ae)is are courts of

la+ andHustice andeCuit. The +ould have no reason to eBist if the +ere allo+ed

to be used as !ere tools of inHustice, deception and duplicit to subvert and suppress

the truth, instead of repositories of Hudicial po+er +hose Hud)es are s+orn and

co!!itted to render i!partial Hustice to all ali@e +ho see@ the enforce!ent or

protection of a ri)ht or the prevention of redress of a +ron), +ithout fear or favor and

re!oved fro! the pressures of politics and preHudice.

e re!ind all !e!bers of the pillars of the cri!inal Hustice sste! that theirs is not a !ere

!inisterial tas@ to process each accused in and out of prison, but a noble dut to preserve

our de!ocratic societ under a rule of la+.

-nent the third issue, it +as certainl )rave error for the DO: to reconsider its K :une 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

22/26

and Hud)es resulted, in li)ht of the findin) of the DO: that the cri!e co!!itted +as !urder, in

un+arranted benefit to the 5-32Ts and )ross preHudice to the State and the offended parties. The

DO: should have coura)eousl eBercised its po+er of control b ta@in) bolder steps to rectif the

shoc@in) >!ista@es> so far co!!itted and, in the final analsis, to prevent further inHustice and full

serve the ends of Hustice. The DO: could have, even if belatedl, Hoined cause +ith petitioners to set

aside arrai)n!ent. Further, in the eBercise of its disciplinar po+ers over its personnel, the DO:could have directed the public prosecutors concerned to sho+ cause +h no disciplinar action

should be ta@en a)ainst the! for ne)lect of dut or conduct preHudicial to the best interest of the

service in not,inter alia, even as@in) the trial court to defer arrai)n!ent in vie+ of the pendenc of

the appeal, infor!in) the DO:, fro! ti!e to ti!e, of the status of the case, and, insofar as

prosecutor Datu +as concerned, in disallo+in) the private prosecutor fro! further participatin) in the

case.

Finall, the DO: should have further inCuired into the vicissitudes of the case belo+ to deter!ine the

re)ularit of arrai)n!ent, considerin) that the appeal +as received b the DO: as earl as 7&

Februar 4 of the K :une 4

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

23/26

3ootote&

4 /ollo,

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

24/26

7& 5d., 4AA.

7 5d., 44L.

7% OR, 4&

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

25/26

& 5d., 7$$=7$

7/25/2019 GR NO 127107

26/26

$$ OR, 4AA.

$K OR, 4$=4