G.R. No. 120014 - Aurillo, Jr. vs. Rabi

Noel Rabi was arrested without a warrant on January 10, 1995, for possession of an unlicensed firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
The case was initially investigated by Public Prosecutor Zenaida Camonical Isidro, who recommended dismissal due to lack of probable cause, citing hearsay and absence of evidence.
Regional State Prosecutor Francisco Aurillo, Jr. assumed jurisdiction and ordered a new preliminary investigation, directing the City Prosecutor to elevate the case records.

On January 27, 1995, Rabi's counsel filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that Aurillo lacked authority to take over the preliminary investigation.
Rabi claimed that the regional state prosecutor only had administrative supervision over city prosecutors and could not modify their resolutions without the Secretary of Justice's directive.
The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on January 30, 1995, preventing Aurillo from conducting the new preliminary investigation.

Aurillo contended that Rabi's petition was premature as he had not exhausted administrative remedies and asserted his authority under relevant laws.
During a hearing on February 15, 1995, the RTC did not resolve the motion for a preliminary injunction but later directed the parties to submit memoranda.
Despite the RTC's order, the assistant regional state prosecutor continued the investigation and filed an Information against Rabi on April 4, 1995.

The RTC ruled in favor of Rabi on April 12, 1995, nullifying the preliminary investigation and the Information filed against him.
The court found that Aurillo acted without authority, as he could not take over the investigation without a directive from the Secretary of Justice.
The RTC awarded Rabi moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees due to Aurillo's disregard for the court's authority.

The Supreme Court identified key issues: whether Rabi's petition was premature, whether Aurillo had the authority to take over the investigation, whether the Information could be nullified, and whether Aurillo was liable for damages.
The Court noted that an aggrieved party must generally exhaust administrative remedies but recognized exceptions where immediate judicial intervention is warranted.

The Court clarified that Aurillo's actions constituted an overreach of authority, as he exercised control rather than mere administrative supervision over the city prosecutor.
The distinction between supervision and control was emphasized, with the Court stating that Aurillo's takeover nullified the city prosecutor's resolution and deprived Rabi of his right to appeal.

The RTC's nullification of the Information was upheld, as Aurillo acted without authority and the RTC had the power to restore the parties to their prior status.
The Court affirmed th...continue reading