Title
Aurillo, Jr. vs. Rabi
Case
G.R. No. 120014
Decision Date
Nov 26, 2002
Noel Rabi challenged Regional State Prosecutor Aurillo's unauthorized takeover of his dismissed firearm case. The Supreme Court ruled Aurillo acted without authority, nullifying his actions but denied Rabi's damages due to lack of proof.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 120014)

Facts:

Arrest and Initial Investigation

  • On January 10, 1995, Noel Rabi was arrested without a warrant and charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 (possession of an unlicensed firearm) in Tacloban City. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 95-043.
  • Public Prosecutor Zenaida Camonical Isidro conducted an inquest investigation and recommended the dismissal of the case on January 11, 1995, due to lack of probable cause. She found that the evidence presented by the arresting officers was hearsay, and the alleged weapons were not found under Rabi’s chair.

Regional State Prosecutor’s Intervention

  • Regional State Prosecutor Francisco Aurillo, Jr. assumed jurisdiction over the case on January 12, 1995, and ordered a new preliminary investigation. He issued a Regional Memorandum Order directing the City Prosecutor to forward the case records to his office.
  • On January 20, 1995, Aurillo issued another order requiring the City Prosecutor to submit the affidavit of the complainant, Rodolfo Cabaluna, and the alleged firearm and knife.
  • The City Prosecutor complied, and a subpoena was issued to Rabi on January 23, 1995, scheduling a new preliminary investigation for February 2, 1995. The charges were expanded to include violations of Comelec Resolution No. 2323 (gun ban), Batas Pambansa Bilang 9 (possession of a deadly weapon), and malicious mischief.

Rabi’s Legal Action

  • On January 27, 1995, Rabi filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, seeking to stop Aurillo from conducting the new preliminary investigation. He argued that Aurillo lacked the authority to take over the case without an order from the Secretary of Justice.
  • The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on January 30, 1995, preventing Aurillo from proceeding with the investigation.

Aurillo’s Defense

  • Aurillo argued that Rabi’s petition was premature, as he had not exhausted administrative remedies. He claimed authority under PD 1275 and Department Order No. 318 to take over the case.
  • Despite the TRO, Aurillo proceeded with the preliminary investigation and filed an Information against Rabi for violating PD 1866 on April 4, 1995.

RTC Decision

  • On April 12, 1995, the RTC ruled in favor of Rabi, nullifying the preliminary investigation and the Information filed by Aurillo. The court awarded Rabi P50,000 in moral damages, P50,000 in exemplary damages, and P30,000 in attorney’s fees, finding that Aurillo acted without authority and in disregard of the court’s TRO.

Issue:

  1. Was Rabi’s petition for prohibition premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
  2. Did Aurillo have the authority to motu proprio take over and conduct a new preliminary investigation of I.S. No. 95-043 after the City Prosecutor had dismissed the case?
  3. Could the RTC nullify the Information filed by Aurillo against Rabi?
  4. Was Aurillo liable for damages and attorney’s fees to Rabi?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s decision to nullify Aurillo’s actions but deleted the awards for damages and attorney’s fees. Aurillo acted without authority in taking over the preliminary investigation, and Rabi’s petition for prohibition was justified under the circumstances.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.