Case Digest (G.R. No. 222870)
Facts:
Jessie Tagastason, Rogelio Tagastason, Jr., Annie Bacala‑Tagastason, and Jerson Tagastason v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222870, July 08, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.In March 2012, Susano Bacala and Emalyn Bacala filed a Complaint‑Affidavit for Murder and Frustrated Murder against petitioners and several co‑accused. The accused sought an extension to file counter‑affidavits until 10 April 2012; the City Prosecutor partially granted the motion and set the deadline at 4 April 2012. On 4 April 2012 the City Prosecutor issued an Omnibus Motion finding probable cause and filed Informations at 12:00 noon the same day. The cases were raffled on 10 April 2012 to Executive Judge Francisco F. Maclang, who then issued warrants of arrest that day.
The accused learned of the partial grant, the prosecutor’s finding, the filing of Informations, and issuance of warrants only on 10 April 2012. They then filed (1) a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary; (2) an administrative complaint against the City Prosecutor; and (3) a motion for inhibition and a motion to hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 3. Judge Maclang denied the motion to hold in abeyance but set the inhibition motion for hearing. The accused moved for reconsideration of the denial. While that motion was pending, they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA), invoking extreme urgency.
The CA, in a 22 January 2015 Decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 04924‑MIN, denied the petition, finding no denial of due process, that the City Prosecutor’s partial grant and filing were timely, and that the issuance of warrants by Judge Maclang was within his discretion; the CA also held that the DOJ appeal did ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in sustaining the warrants of arrest issued by Judge Maclang?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in ruling that petitioners were not deprived of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)