Title
Supreme Court
Ark Travel Express Inc. vs. Abrogar
Case
G.R. No. 137010
Decision Date
Aug 29, 2003
Ark Travel accused Baguio and Ira of false testimony in a civil case. DOJ reversed City Prosecutor's findings, but MTC denied withdrawal of charges. RTC dismissed cases, but SC ruled MTC must independently evaluate DOJ's resolution and suspend criminal cases pending civil case resolution.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 199455)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petitioner's criminal complaint and preliminary prosecution
   1. Ark Travel Express, Inc. (Ark Travel) filed a criminal complaint for False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code against respondents Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira, before the City Prosecutor of Makati.    2. The City Prosecutor, in a resolution dated November 20, 1996, found probable cause to indict respondents and filed Informations for False Testimony before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati (Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895). The Informations alleged that respondents gave false testimony in Civil Case No. 95-1542 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 137, regarding payment claims between Ark Travel and New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. (NFMAI). Respondents allegedly testified that NFMAI settled claims which were in truth unpaid.
  • Subsequent DOJ resolutions and withdrawal efforts
   1. Respondents petitioned the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review. On March 9, 1998, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito P. ZuAo reversed the earlier probable cause finding and ordered dismissal.    2. The Makati prosecution then moved before the MTC to withdraw the Informations.    3. Ark Travel filed an Urgent Petition for Automatic Review before the DOJ, which Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III treated as a motion for reconsideration and reversed the March 9, 1998 resolution on May 27, 1998, directing resumption of prosecution and denying the withdrawal motion.    4. Accordingly, on June 10, 1998, the MTC denied the Motion to Withdraw Information and set the arraignment.
  • Renewed motions for reconsideration and RTC intervention
   1. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the DOJ, citing untimely filing of the prior petition and lack of malice in their testimonies.    2. DOJ Undersecretary Jesus A. Zozobrado, Jr. granted the motion on June 26, 1998, reinstating the dismissal order and directing withdrawal of the informations.    3. Respondents then moved the MTC to reconsider its June 10, 1998 Order, arguing the DOJ reinstatement removed obstacles to withdrawal.    4. The MTC denied the motion in an Order dated July 21, 1998, invoking the doctrine from Crespo vs. Mogul that the court has discretion over the disposition of a filed Information and held that facts alleged were sufficient to allege the offense.
  • Petition to RTC and RTC's Orders
   1. Respondents challenged the MTC Orders by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC of Makati.    2. The RTC, in an Order dated October 2, 1998, granted the petition, setting aside the MTC Orders and considering the criminal cases as withdrawn, holding that the MTC acted with grave abuse of discretion by denying withdrawal solely based on the Crespo Doctrine without an independent evaluation of probable cause.    3. Ark Travel’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC on November 23, 1998.
  • Petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court
   1. Ark Travel filed this petition alleging the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion and lacked jurisdiction in nullifying the MTC Orders, enjoining the MTC from hearing the cases, and ordering outright dismissal of the criminal cases.    2. Respondents raised procedural defenses citing improper remedy, delay, finality of RTC orders, violation of hierarchy of courts, and validity of DOJ rulings.    3. Ark Travel maintained certiorari as the proper remedy due to jurisdictional defects and lack of speedy and adequate remedy by appeal, and alleged the petition did not violate hierarchal principle because of pure questions of law involved.

Issues:

  • Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess or lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the MTC Orders denying the withdrawal of information and declaring the criminal cases as withdrawn and dismissed;
  • Whether the MTC erred in denying the Motion to Withdraw on the basis of DOJ rulings without making an independent evaluation of probable cause;
  • Whether the criminal cases for false testimony should be proceeded with or suspended pending final resolution of the civil case involving the same issues;
  • Proper remedy for challenging the orders denying withdrawal of information—certiorari or appeal;
  • The effect of the principle of hierarchy of courts and timeliness of the petition for certiorari in this case;

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms