G.R. No. 182398 - Hung vs. BPI Card Fice Corp.

The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeks to annul the order of Judge Rodolfo Ponferrada of RTC Manila, Branch 41.
The order approved the withdrawal of the Informations charging private respondents with multiple murder in Criminal Case Nos. 00-184244-50.

On the night following local elections, seven relatives of the petitioners were murdered in Brgy. Pattao, Buguey, Cagayan.
Two witnesses, Ernesto Mendoza and Mario Gascon, provided affidavits stating that while riding in a jeepney with the victims, they were flagged down by armed men in fatigue uniforms.
The jeepney driver, instructed by ex-Army Major Romulo Langcay (one of the passengers), initially did not stop; however, the armed men then fired at the jeepney, forcing it to halt.

In their affidavits, Mendoza and Gascon claimed that after the jeepney was stopped, they witnessed private respondent Roy Flores returning to his house located approximately 41 meters from where they were hiding behind a guava tree.
The witnesses alleged they overheard a conversation between Roy Flores, Atty. Franklin Tamargo, and Atty. Manuel Molina, where orders were issued to “kill all the passengers” of the jeepney.
Conversely, private respondents contended that they were inside Roy Flores’ house at the time of the incident, heard only the gunshots, and were not involved in any such conspiracy.
Corroboration came from other witnesses, Apolinario and Leonardo Time, who supported the private respondents’ version by stating they were also inside Roy Flores’ house during the shooting.

State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco, following the preliminary investigation, issued a resolution finding probable cause against private respondents for multiple murder and recommended the filing of Informations.
The Informations were filed in the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6.
Subsequently, private respondents filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Acting DOJ Secretary Ricardo G. Nepomuceno, Jr. reviewed the conflicting witness statements and reversed Velasco’s resolution, directing the withdrawal of the charges against the private respondents, citing the lack of a well-founded belief in probable guilt.
The new DOJ Secretary, Serafin Cuevas, later reaffirmed the order to withdraw the Informations.
With the case transferred and re-docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 00-184244-50 in RTC-Manila, Branch 41, public respondent Judge Ponferrada granted the motion to withdraw the charges after a careful evaluation and even after requiring written memoranda from both parties.

The petitioners sought to annul Judge Ponferrada's order that approved the withdrawal/dismissal of the Informations based on their contention that the DOJ lost its power of review once the case was filed.
They argued, relying on the precedent set in Crespo v. Mogul, that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any subsequent disposition (dismissal, conviction, or acquittal) should rest solely with the court’s discretion without interference from the DOJ.
Petitioners further alleged that Judge Ponferrada abused his discretion by appearing to follow the DOJ directive without independently evaluating the evidence presented.

Whether the Secretary of Justice still possessed the power to review and overrule the findings of the public prosecutor after the submission and filing of a complaint or information in court.

Whether the trial court, in granting the motion to withdraw the charges, acted within its sound discretion and independent evaluation of the evidence, or if it was merely acting in blind obedience to the DOJ’s order.

Whether the filing of a complaint or information in court precludes the Secretary of Justice from ordering the withdrawal of criminal charges even after the initiation of court proceedings.