Case Digest (G.R. No. 126000)
Facts:
In April 1992, Dr. Juan F. Torres, Jr. filed before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office Complaint for Libel docketed I.S. No. 92-5433A against Dr. Rhodora M. Ledesma. After petitioner submitted a counter-affidavit, Assistant City Prosecutor Augustine A. Vestil found a sufficient legal basis and, on July 6, 1992, filed an information for libel with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, presided by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion. The information alleged that petitioner, acting with malice, sent on June 27, 1991, a letter to Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Director of the Philippine Heart Center for Asia, accusing Dr. Torres and Dr. Monzon of unfairly distributing professional fees. Petitioner sought relief by filing a petition for review under P.D. Nos. 77 and 911, and on January 27, 1993, Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon reversed the finding of probable cause, deeming the letter a privileged communication, and directed withdrawal of the information. Complying, Prosecu...Case Digest (G.R. No. 126000)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- April 1992 – Dr. Juan F. Torres, Jr. files a libel complaint against Dr. Rhodora M. Ledesma before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office (I.S. No. 92-5433A). Petitioner submits a counter-affidavit.
- July 6, 1992 – Quezon City Prosecutor files an Information for libel against petitioner in RTC, Quezon City, Branch 104, based on a letter dated June 27, 1991.
- Department of Justice Proceedings
- Petitioner appeals the prosecutor’s resolution to the Secretary of Justice under P.D. No. 77/911. DOJ gives due course, and the trial court defers arraignment (September 1992) pending final termination of the appeal.
- Private complainant moves to lift the deferment; RTC sets arraignment for January 18, 1993 despite the pending DOJ appeal.
- Secretary of Justice’s Resolution
- January 27, 1993 – Justice Secretary Franklin M. Drilon reverses the investigating prosecutor, finds the June 27 letter privileged, and directs withdrawal of the Information.
- February 17, 1993 – Trial Prosecutor moves to withdraw the Information in compliance with the Secretary’s directive.
- Trial Court Orders
- February 22, 1993 – RTC Judge Asuncion denies the motion to withdraw, citing Crespo vs. Mogul (151 SCRA 462) and directs the prosecution to proceed.
- March 5, 1993 – RTC denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration without stating independent grounds.
- Appellate Proceedings
- Petitioner files a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court; on referral, the Court of Appeals dismisses for lack of merit, holding it cannot override Crespo.
- Petitioner elevates the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Whether failure to assign errors against the Court of Appeals deprives the petition of due course.
- Whether the Supreme Court may nevertheless entertain the petition under Rule 45.
- Substantive Issues
- Did the RTC commit reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Withdraw the Information despite the Secretary of Justice’s resolution?
- Are trial courts bound by or required to independently assess DOJ resolutions directing withdrawal of information?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)