People vs. Grey

Facts:

The case is People of the Philippines v. Joseph "Jojo" V. Grey, Francis B. Grey, and Court of Appeals‑Cebu City, Eighteenth Division, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is the People of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General); the respondents are Joseph "Jojo" V. Grey (former mayor) and Francis B. Grey (his son), and the Court of Appeals‑Cebu City, Eighteenth Division.

On December 11, 2006 an Information for murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Gandara, Samar, against Joseph and Francis Grey and others for the killing of Rolando Diocton. The Information was accompanied by supporting documents and a motion for issuance of warrants of arrest. The presiding judge of RTC Branch 41, Judge Rosario Bandal, denied the prosecution’s motion for issuance of warrants, finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to link the respondents to the crime and ordering the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days.

The prosecution filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and sought Judge Bandal’s inhibition; Judge Bandal inhibited herself but denied reconsideration. The provincial prosecutor then sought a change of venue before the Supreme Court (attaching a letter from the victim’s wife expressing fear). The Secretary of Justice dismissed a petition for review filed by respondents and affirmed probable cause on January 4, 2007, and denied reconsideration on January 30, 2007; the prosecution later withdrew its motion for change of venue for practical reasons. Respondents filed their own petition for change of venue before the Supreme Court on February 19, 2007; the Court denied it on August 22, 2007 and directed Judge Roberto A. Navidad, who had taken over the case, to proceed.

Judge Navidad conducted a preliminary inquiry and, by Order dated February 20, 2007, found probable cause and issued warrants of arrest against the respondents. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA) Eighteenth Division, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Navidad, and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO). The CA issued a TRO on March 13, 2007, and after oral argument promulgated a Decision on May 8, 2007 making the TRO permanent, setting aside the warrants of arrest, and dismissing the criminal case without prejudice. The CA held that Judge Navidad failed to personally determine probable cause and that the Information was not supported by the affidavits, which allegedly showed respondents were not present at the scene and contained no facts establishing conspiracy.

The CA denied reconsi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did respondents commit forum shopping by filing a petition for change of venue before the Supreme Court and, while it was pending, a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals?
• Did Judge Navidad fail to personally determine probable cause for issuance of warrants of arrest such that he gravely abused his discretion?
• Was the Court of Appeals justified in permanently enjoining the criminal prosecution and ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)