Facts:

The case involves two consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 177600 and G.R. No. 178684. The petitioners in G.R. No. 177600 are Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota, Mayor Amer Oden Balindong, and Ali Balindong, while the petitioner in G.R. No. 178684 is Zenaida Limbona. The case arises from a shooting incident that occurred on May 11, 1998, in Poblacion, Malabang, Lanao del Sur, which resulted in the deaths of Dante Limbona and Ante Maguindanao, and serious injuries to Azis Panda and Kiri Hadji Salik. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause to charge the private respondents with double murder and multiple frustrated murder. The original Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Malabang, but after a reinvestigation, the provincial prosecutor downgraded the charges against some respondents, prompting Zenaida Limbona, the widow of one of the victims, to file a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Over th

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The consolidated cases stem from a shooting incident in Poblacion, Malabang, Lanao del Sur on May 11, 1998, which resulted in the death of Dante Limbona and Ante Maguindanao, with serious injuries to Azis Panda and Kiri Hadji Salik.
• The preliminary investigation revealed sufficient evidence to charge private respondents—including Lt. Col. Jalandoni D. Cota, Anwar Berua Balindong, PO1 Kennedy Balindong, Amer Oden Balindong, and Ali Sarip Balindong—with double murder with multiple frustrated murder, though subsequent reinvestigation led to a downgrading of some charges.

Development of Prosecution and DOJ Resolutions

• Initially, an Information was filed before the RTC of Malabang, Lanao del Sur (Branch 12) based on probable cause findings by the investigating prosecutor.
• Private complainant Zenaida Limbona brought a petition for review against the Provincial Prosecutor’s 28 August 1998 Resolution, prompting the DOJ to modify the charges via a 4 August 1999 Resolution.
• A 1 December 1999 Resolution by then Secretary Serafin Cuevas and subsequent motions for reconsideration ensued, with conflicting determinations:
• The third motion for reconsideration was eventually granted by Secretary Hernando B. Perez on 12 March 2001, only to be later denied in a subsequent resolution on 24 July 2001.
• The matter was brought before the Court of Appeals in petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 66858) which, in its 22 May 2003 Decision, reinstated the DOJ resolutions of August 4, 1999, December 1, 1999, and March 16, 2000 over the third motion.

Sequence of Judicial Proceedings and Issuance of Warrants

• Following the CA decision, Criminal Cases Nos. 2503, 2573 (and others) were re-raffled and re-assigned to various RTC branches in Quezon City.
• The RTC, acting on the reinstated DOJ resolutions and the CA’s pronouncement, issued resolutions finding probable cause and consequently the warrants of arrest.
• Despite the issuance of warrants implying that the trial court had determined probable cause based on the filing of the information, respondents persistently filed motions for a re-determination of probable cause and for amending the charges – arguing that the determination was merely executive and not judicial.

Involvement of Multiple Judges and Court Orders

• Judge Ralph S. Lee (RTC Branch 83) issued an order on 12 May 2006 granting a motion for re-determination which downgraded the offenses.
• Respondent Judge Vivencio S. Baclig (RTC Branch 77) later denied a Motion for Reconsideration of the May 12, 2006 Order and set the arraignment dates.
• The appellate and Supreme Courts became involved when the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, commenced a special civil action alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Lee and also addressed subsequent unauthorized motions by the respondents.
• On 16 December 2004 and later in subsequent decisions (including the 20 November 2006 Decision in G.R. No. 173290), the Supreme Court affirmed that the charges should remain as originally determined (two counts of murder with attempted murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and one count of attempted murder) with the issuance of the arrest warrants.

Contempt Proceedings and Judicial Discretion

• While the respondents (Balindong, et al.) continued to file motions challenging the final and executory determinations by higher courts, the Supreme Court admonished such filings as an attempt to rehash settled issues.
• A separate petition (G.R. No. 178684) was filed by Zenaida M. Limbona alleging that Judge Alexander S. Balut of RTC Branch 76, through his order suspending the enforcement of alias warrants of arrest on 16 July 2007, committed indirect contempt of court by defying Supreme Court decisions.
• Judge Balut justified his order on the grounds of judicial courtesy and prudence pending the final resolution of the petition for review (G.R. No. 177600).

Consolidated Nature of the Cases

• G.R. No. 177600 involves the petition for review on certiorari by Balindong, et al., contesting that the trial court’s issuance of warrant (which implies a finding of probable cause) should not preclude them from seeking a further judicial determination.
• G.R. No. 178684 involves Limbona’s petition for contempt against Judge Balut for what she contends is the willful disobedience of clear Supreme Court resolutions and orders regarding the issuance and enforcement of arrest warrants.

Issue:

Issue in G.R. No. 177600

• Whether, after the exhaustion of the preliminary investigation process and the subsequent appellate and Supreme Court review (culminating in the final determination in G.R. No. 159962), the trial court or the accused may still invoke Section 14, Rule 110 or Section 19, Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure to seek a judicial determination of probable cause distinct from the executive determination already made.
• Whether the accused’s contention that the issuance of arrest warrants (implying a finding of probable cause) is insufficient to bar them from filing further motions on the proper charge is tenable.

Issue in G.R. No. 178684

• Whether Judge Balut’s order suspending the enforcement of alias warrants of arrest constitutes an act of disobedience against the clear and final Supreme Court resolutions (G.R. Nos. 159962 and 173290) thereby amounting to indirect contempt of court.
• Whether his exercise of judicial discretion under the guise of judicial courtesy justifies the suspension and averts allegations of contempt.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)