G.R. No. 192925 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, let informations for violation of Article 315 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code for two (2) counts be filed in the proper court against [petitioners] Reynaldo G. Panaligan, Tita L. Matulin, Jose Rizal [L.] Remo, Isagani S. Casalme, Cipriano P. Roxas, Cesario S. Gutierrez, Celso A. Landicho and Eduardo L. Tagle. The complaint against respondents Ferdinand Trinidad and Rodrigo Bangayan is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Pursuant to the OCP resolution, two (2) informations [23] for simple estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC were filed against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City. Both informations were raffled to Branch 12, presided by Judge Danilo S. Sandoval (Judge Sandoval). The information pertaining to the estafa committed in relation with the ITI contract was docketed as Criminal Case No. 0503-2007 whereas that pertaining to the estafa committed in relation with the Supertrac contract was docketed as Criminal Case No. 0504-2007. Petitions For Review Before the Justice Secretary and the Flip-Flopping Resolutions The filing of the informations notwithstanding, petitioners and Manalo still filed their respective petitions for review assailing the OCP resolution before the Secretary [24] of the Department of Justice (DOJ). In their petition for review, [25] petitioners challenged, among others, the OCP's finding of probable cause for simple estafa against them. Petitioners insist upon their absolute innocence of any crime and pray for the dismissal of the complaint against them. In his petition for review, on the other hand, Manalo sought to question the OCP's absolution of Trinidad and Bangayan and also its downgrading of the indictable offense from syndicated estafa to simple estafa. Manalo maintained that petitioners, Trinidad and Bangayan should all be charged with the crime of syndicated estafa. [26] On 26 November 2008 , the DOJ Secretary issued a resolution [27] dismissing petitioners' petition for review for lack of merit and favoring Manalo's petition. The DOJ Secretary agreed with Manalo's assertion that petitioners, Trinidad and Bangayan should all be charged and be so charged with the crime of syndicated estafa. Thus, in his resolution, the DOJ Secretary ordered the modification of the OCP resolution and directed the filing in court of two (2) separate informations for syndicated estafaone against petitioners and Trinidad and another against petitioners and Bangayan. The dispositive portion of the resolution accordingly provides: [28] WHEREFORE , the assailed Resolution is hereby MODIFIED and that the Investigating State Prosecutors are directed to file Two (2) Separate Informations in Court, to wit: Information for Syndicated Estafa under Presidential Decree 1689 in relation to Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code against [petitioners] Reynaldo Panaligan, Jose Rizal Remo, Tita Matulin, Isagani Casalme, Cipriano Roxas, Cesario Gutierrez, Ce