G.R. No. 158236 - LIGAYA V. SANTOS, VS. DOMINGO I. ORDA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED and the assailed resolutions are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE . The City Prosecutor of Parañaque City is hereby directed to cause the withdrawal of the criminal Informations for murder filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 258, Parañaque City, against respondents LIGAYA SANTOS, EDNA CORTEZ and RONNIE YBAÑEZ (I.S. No. 01-F-2052) and against respondents CHRISTOPHER and GIRLIE CASTILLO and ROBERT BUNDA (I.S. No. 01-H-3410) and to report to this Department the action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED . [26] On June 27, 2002, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration thereof. However, the public prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations in the two cases on June 20, 2002 in compliance with the joint resolution of the Secretary of Justice. On July 2, 2002, the respondent filed a comment/opposition to the motion to withdraw the Informations filed by the public prosecutor, contending: I- THAT COMPLAINANT HEREBY ADOPTS ITS POSITION RAISED IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (COPY ATTACHED AS ANNEX A). HENCE, THE DETERMINATION OF THE INSTANT MOTION IS STILL PREMATURE ESPECIALLY SO THAT ALL THE ACCUSED-MOVANTS ARE STILL AT LARGE, EVADING SERVICE OF ARREST WARRANT, IN WHICH CASE THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF; II- THAT THE LATE ( SIC ) FINDINGS OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ACCUSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOT BINDING; III- THAT THE HONORABLE COURT HAS JUDICIOUSLY AND SOUNDLY ADJUDGED THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE; and, IV- THAT TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE INSTANT MOTION WOULD ONLY CREATE CHAOS AND INJUSTICE. [27] Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the trial court issued an Order on July 5, 2002 granting the motion of the public prosecutor to withdraw the Informations in the interest of justice and equity. [28] The trial court ruled that such withdrawal would not prevent the refiling of the Informations against the accused who would not be able to invoke double jeopardy, considering that the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over their persons. The private complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order which was not opposed by the public prosecutor. Nonetheless, on July 23, 2002, the trial court issued an Order denying the motion on the ground that it could not order the refiling of the Informations if the DOJ and the public prosecutor refused to do so. [29] The respondent forthwith filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the orders of the trial court. On March 19, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision granting the petition. The appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Informations without making an independent evaluation on the merits of the case. Santos filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision and a supplement to the said motion, which was opposed by the respondent. On May 6, 2003, Santos