Facts:

On May 11, 1998, during the national and local elections at Poblacion Malabang, Lanao del Sur, a shooting incident occurred that resulted in the deaths of two individuals and left two others seriously wounded. The incident involved two groups: one led by the petitioners Anwar Berua Balindong, who was a mayoralty candidate, his sons Amer Oden Balindong and Ali Balindong, and other associates including Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota. The other group was led by Atty. Cabi Marohom, another candidate for mayor. The confrontation began when the Balindong group, upon noticing a heated exchange with Marohom's group during the distribution of ballot boxes, opened fire indiscriminately as Marohom's group attempted to retreat. The victims Dante Limbona and Ante Magindanao were killed instantly, while Azis Panda and Kiri Hadji Salic suffered severe injuries. All casualties were unarmed. Prosecutor Ringcar Pinote conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to indict the p

...

Facts:

Incident and Background

• A shooting incident occurred during the national and local elections on 11 May 1998 at Poblacion Malabang, Lanao del Sur.
• The altercation involved two factions supporting different mayoralty candidates: the petitioners (including Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota, Mayor Amer Oden Balindong, and Ali Balindong) and the group of Atty. Cabi Marohom.
• Tension escalated during the release and distribution of ballot boxes, held between nine and ten o’clock in the morning.

Sequence of Events

• A heated exchange broke out when the two groups encountered one another.
• Sensing imminent violence, Atty. Cabi Marohom’s group decided to withdraw from the scene.
• As the withdrawal was underway, the Balindong group fired indiscriminately, failing to hit Marohom but causing fatalities and injuries.

Casualties and Immediate Aftermath

• Killed on the spot were Dante Limbona and Ante Magindanao; both victims were unarmed.
• Azis Panda and Kiri Hadji Salic sustained serious bullet wounds; timely medical treatment at the Malabang District Hospital prevented further tragedy.
• Amid the chaos, Anwar Balindong and his sons were seen giving instructions to deploy the armed group further.

Preliminary Investigation and Initial Charges

• Investigating prosecutor Ringcar Pinote found probable cause to indict the petitioners for the offense of Double Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder.
• An Information was filed before the RTC of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, Branch 12.
• Petitioners filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation, which resulted in an order (dated 23 July 1998) returning the records to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.

Modification of Charges and Venue Transfer

• A Resolution dated 28 August 1998 modified charges by:
• Changing the charge against some petitioners to double homicide with multiple frustrated homicide.
• Dropping charges against others (specifically Amer Oden Balindong and Ali Balindong).
• The Supreme Court later transferred venue—from Lanao del Sur to Cotabato City, to Cagayan de Oro City, and eventually to Quezon City—through various orders for purposes of inhibition, security, and improved court management.

Filing of Motions for Reconsideration and Administrative Actions

• The petitioners repeatedly sought reconsideration of the charges and decisions:
• An initial motion for reinvestigation was granted.
• Multiple motions for reconsideration were filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) leading to a series of resolutions (dated 04 August 1999, 01 December 1999, 16 March 2000, and 12 March 2001).
• The DOJ eventually modified the information, ultimately filing amended information in a different RTC jurisdiction even after successive motions for reconsideration.

Judicial Proceedings and Certiorari

• In response to administrative decisions, the private respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals, seeking review of the DOJ Resolution.
• The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 22 May 2003, reversed the DOJ Resolution of 12 March 2001 and reinstated earlier resolutions (dated 04 August 1999, 01 December 1999, and 16 March 2000).
• Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging these appellate actions.

Issuance of Warrants and Temporary Restraining Order

• The trial court in the RTC of Quezon City eventually issued warrants of arrest (03 December 2003) for the petitioners in connection with the pending criminal cases.
• The petitioners opposed these warrants by seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO), which was granted on 18 February 2004 upon posting a bond.
• Subsequent motions for early resolution were filed by the private respondent, alleging continuous harassment and further violent incidents affecting the victims, including a grenade blast.

Central Contentions and Dispute

• The crux of the dispute centers on whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in setting aside the DOJ Resolution dated 12 March 2001.
• Petitioners argued that the Secretary of Justice acted within his discretion in entertaining a third motion for reconsideration by relying on precedent and aiming to adjust the offense from murder to homicide.
• In contrast, the respondent contended that the Secretary’s decision was a grave abuse of discretion because it contravened the mandatory limits prescribed in Section 13 of DOJ Circular No. 70, which disallows a second or further motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Central Legal Issue

• Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing and setting aside the DOJ Resolution dated 12 March 2001.

Substantive and Procedural Questions

• Did the Secretary of Justice, by entertaining a third motion for reconsideration, abuse his discretion in violation of the mandatory provision of DOJ Circular No. 70?
• Is the filing of successive motions for reconsideration, particularly when prior grounds have been previously decided, permissible under procedural rules?
• Does the venue transfer and the physical location of the case records affect the jurisdiction of the trial courts once the Supreme Court has ordered a transfer?
• Are evidentiary issues concerning the qualification of the alleged offense (homicide versus murder) appropriately raised during appeal, or are they matters for trial?

Implications on Administrative and Procedural Law

• The extent of the discretion available to the Secretary of Justice in amending or setting aside the procedural rules of the DOJ in the interests of justice.
• The effect of judicial rulings on subsequent administrative actions and the enforcement of procedural rules in criminal prosecutions.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)