Case Digest (G.R. No. 198701)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 198701)
Facts:
Secretary Leila De Lima, Assistant State Prosecutor Stewart Allan A. Mariano, Assistant State Prosecutor Vimar M. Barcellano and Assistant State Prosecutor Gerard E. Gaerlan v. Mario Joel T. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.On January 24, 2011, veterinarian and radio broadcaster Dr. Gerardo Ortega was killed in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. A suspect, Marlon Recamata, was arrested and made an extrajudicial confession implicating others, and on February 6, 2011 Rodolfo Edrad executed a sworn statement alleging that former Palawan Governor Mario Joel T. Reyes ordered the killing. On February 7, 2011 Secretary De Lima issued Department Order No. 091, creating a special panel of prosecutors (the First Panel) to conduct the preliminary investigation.
The First Panel conducted the preliminary investigation and on June 8, 2011 issued a Resolution dismissing the complaint. The victim’s widow, Dr. Patria Gloria Inocencio-Ortega, filed a Motion to Re-Open and a Motion for Partial Reconsideration to admit additional mobile-phone evidence; both were denied by the First Panel in its September 2, 2011 Resolution. On September 7, 2011 Secretary De Lima issued Department Order No. 710, revoking D.O. No. 091 and creating a Second Panel to reinvestigate “in the interest of service and due process” to address the First Panel’s refusal to admit the additional evidence.
Before the Second Panel completed its work, respondent Reyes filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 3, 2011, challenging the creation of the Second Panel as a grave abuse of discretion. The Second Panel completed a reinvestigation, found probable cause on March 12, 2012, and an information was filed in Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan; the RTC issued warrants on March 27, 2012. Reyes filed further petitions and impleaded the RTC in his supplemental CA petition.
On March 19, 2013 the CA Special Division of Five rendered a Decision declaring Department Order No. 710 null and void and reinstating the First Panel’s resolutions; Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan penned the decision, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta concurring and Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza dissenting; Associate Justice Acosta also penned a separate concurring opinion. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in a September 27, 2013 Resolution. The Secretary, the Second Panel, and Dr. Inocencio-Ortega filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA Decision and Resolution; the petition was docketed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45).
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion when she issued Department Order No. 710?
- Was the issuance of Department Order No. 710 an executive function beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari or prohibition?
- Is the Secretary of Justice authorized to create motu proprio another panel of prosecutors to conduct a reinvestigation?
- Has this Petition for Review on Certiorari been rendered moot by the filing of the information and issuance of the warrant of arrest (i.e., judicial determination of probable cause), pursuant to Crespo v. Mogul?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)