G.R. No. 174016 - SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ARLENE C. BALTAZAR, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ARMANDO C. BAUTISTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated September 23, 2002 of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. He is hereby directed to immediately cause the withdrawal of the information for murder and less serious physical injury filed against respondent Armando C. Bautista before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Malolos, Bulacan and to report the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [23] Pursuant to the afore-quoted DOJ Resolution, a Motion to Withdraw Information [24] dated 28 July 2004 was filed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC and was granted by Judge Concepcion in an Order issued on 30 July 2004 [25] based on the following ratiocination: Acting on the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by 3 rd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin R. Caraig, the regular public prosecutor assigned to this Court, for the reason stated therein, there being no cogent reason to rule otherwise, considering further that the accused is a detention prisoner in this case, the same is hereby granted. WHEREFORE, as prayed for by the prosecution, the information for murder filed against herein accused is hereby considered withdrawn from the docket of this Court. Unless herein accused Armando c. Bautista @ Arman should be further detained for any valid cause or reason, the Provincial Jail Warden of Bulacan is hereby directed to effect the immediate release from his detention in this case. Let copies of this order be furnished the prosecution, the accused, his counsel, and the Provincial Jail Warden of Bulacan. [26] A Motion for Reconsideration [27] of the 30 July 2004 Order was filed by the private prosecutor, but Judge Concepcion denied the same in another Order dated 23 November 2004. [28] The RTC Order reads: [A]fter reading the statements of the witnesses given to the police soon after the tragic accident occurred in the evening of April 21, 2002, nothing was mentioned by the witnesses of the alleged intentional killing of the victim by running over her with the car of the accused. What they said to the police was what appeared to be a simple case of criminal negligence in driving the car by the accused when said vehicle bumped the pedicab occupied by the victims who were thrown out, resulting to the death of one of them, without the accused rendering any help or assistance to them, but fleeing from the scene of the accident - a case of hit and run accident. Then later on one of these witnesses executed an affidavit stating that the car, after bumping the pedicab of the victims, stopped and then moved backwards intentionally to run over one of the victims who was killed as a result thereof. Such declaration is suspect of a mere afterthought to create a much graver offense than a case of criminal negligence, the Court not hesitating to say that from the statement of the police investigator in his affidavit, he clearly appears not an impartial police investigator but one who has expressed his bad opinio