Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
the Petition is grossly misplaced.
Accordingly, Castro cannot advance respondent's case. [30] Rather, petitioner posits that this Court's ruling in People v. Odilao, Jr. (Odilao) [31] is appropriate and decisive on the issue of the court's deferment of the criminal proceedings in view of a review of the findings of the preliminary investigation. This Court therein allegedly directed the trial court to proceed with the arraignment of respondent and trial on the merits on the basis of Section 11, [32] Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules) . [33] Second, petitioner contends that there is no reason to enjoin the criminal prosecution of respondent because he was afforded the fundamental right to due process. It listed the numerous ways in which respondent had availed himself of the legal remedies afforded by law. [34] Third, petitioner claims that, contrary to the CA's finding, the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondent's Motion for Suspension of Criminal Proceedings. It points out that respondent's Petition for Certiorari failed to state any factual averment constituting grave abuse of discretion. It is not grave abuse of discretion for the trial court judge to deny respondent's Motion to Suspend Proceedings as a finding of probable cause against him was evident from the magistrate's own determination of such facts. [35] In his Comment, [36] respondent argues that the preliminary investigation remains incomplete because his Petition for Review assailing the Undated Order of SACP Laurente denying his Motion for Reconsideration is pending with the DOJ. [37] He rejects petitioner's discussion concerning the Castro and Torralba cases. He asserts that "[t]here was no issue of an incomplete preliminary investigation on this aspect of the [ Castro ] case and petitioner's reliance on the portion cited on page 12 of the Petition is grossly misplaced." [38] He also insists that reliance on the Torralba ruling is proper because it directly discusses the issue of an incomplete preliminary investigation. [39] He disparages petitioner's reliance on Odilao on the ground that it was decided prior to Castro and does not involve the issue of an incomplete preliminary investigation. For this same reason, he rejects the reliance on Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. [40] and Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge How [41] which Odilao cited. [42] Respondent also rejects petitioner's invocation of Sec. 11, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure because petitioner allegedly previously argued that the subject of the instant case is not a Petition for Review. [43] Even if the 60-day period stated in Sec. 11, Rule 116 is applicable, the lapse of such period is allegedly due to petitioner. Further, said period is applied in relation to an Information already filed in court as against a Petition for Review with the DOJ after preliminary investigation. Petitioner also argues that the proceedings before the CA is an interlocutory app