Case Digest (G.R. No. 189596)
Facts:
Department of Justice v. Teodulo Nano Alaon, G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Private complainant AAA accused respondent Teodulo Nano Alaon of committing rape on three successive occasions in October 2000. The Provincial Prosecutor of Daet, Camarines Norte initially found probable cause for three counts of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (I.S. No. 2002-10728). Upon Alaon’s motion for reconsideration, the Provincial Prosecutor downgraded the offense to three counts of acts of lasciviousness, citing the victim’s age, the evidence on record and precedents on the characterization of certain acts.
An Information charging acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 03-1021) was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Labo, Camarines Norte. On 28 January 2003, then Secretary of Justice Simeon Datumanong directed the Provincial Prosecutor to forward the records for automatic review and to defer filing or to move for suspension of proceedings to preserve the Secretary’s residual authority. This directive followed a letter from BBB, AAA’s mother, stating AAA suffered from an intellectual disability and asking the DOJ for review.
Confusion ensued: on 11 February 2003, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Carmel Josa Estrellado mistakenly advised the RTC that a petition for review had been filed and requested withdrawal of the Information; RTC found probable cause for acts of lasciviousness but held issuance of a warrant in abeyance and, on 12 February 2003, suspended proceedings under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. On 26 February 2003, Prosecutor Estrellado clarified the error — no petition for review had been filed; BBB merely requested DOJ review. Alaon moved to lift the suspension and for arraignment; the RTC set arraignment and denied Estrellado’s motion to withdraw appearance, later denying a renewed motion to suspend and setting pretrial. Trial proceeded; Alaon pled not guilty at arraignment on 11 June 2003.
While trial was ongoing, Undersecretary Ernesto Pineda of the DOJ issued a Resolution dated 18 March 2008 setting aside the Provincial Prosecutor’s downgrading and directing filing of an Information for three counts of rape in relation to RA 7610. Alaon petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion. On 25 March 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and annulled the DOJ Resolution, holding that the Secretary’s action—taken on BBB’s letter—did not comply with the National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal and deprived Alaon of procedural due process by denying him an opportunity to be heard....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary of Justice act within his authority in treating BBB’s letter as a petition for review and intervening in the Provincial Prosecutor’s resolution without a formal appeal filed in the manner prescribed by the National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal?
- Did the DOJ’s action deprive Alaon of procedural due process by failing to afford him an opportunity to be heard before reinstating rape charges?
- Was the remedy of certiorari appropriate — i.e., did Alaon lack a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)