Peter Paul Dimatulac and Veronica Dimatulac, petitioners vs.
Hon. Sensinando Villon, et. al., respondents.
Facts:
SP03 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in
Pampanga. A complaint for murder was filed in the MTC and
after preliminary investigation, Judge Designate David issued
warrants of arrest against the accused.
Only David, Mandap, Magat, and Yambao were arrested and it
was only Yambao who submitted his counter-affidavit. Judge
David then issued a resolution finding reasonable ground that
the crime of murder has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof.
Though it was not clear whether Pampanga Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores acted motu proprio, or upon
motion of the private respondents, she conducted a
reinvestigation and resolved that the Yabuts and Danny were
in conspiracy, along with the other accused, and committed
homicide.
Before the information for homicide was filed, the Petitioner
appealed the resolution of Alfonso-Flores to the Secretary of
Justice. However, Provincial Proseutor Maranag ordered for
the release of David, Mandap, Magat, and Naguit. An
information for homicide was also filed before the Regional
Trial Court.
Judge Raura approved the cash bonds of the Yabuts and recalled
the warrants of arrest against them.
Private Prosecutor Amado Valdez then filed a Motion to issue hold
departure order and Urgent Motion to defer proceedings.
Judge Roura deferred the resolution of the first Motion and
denied the second. He also set the arraignment of the
accused.
The petitioners filed a Motion to inhibit Judge Roura for hastily
setting the date for arraignment pending the appeal in the
DOJ and for prejudging the matter. They also filed a Petition
for prohibition with the Court of Appeals.
Public Prosecutor Datu filed a Manifestation and Comment with
the trial court and opposed the inhibition of Roura. He also
stated that he will no longer allow the private prosecutor to
participate. Judge Roura voluntarily inhibited himself and was
replaced by Judge Villon.
The Petitioners filed with the RTC a Manifestation submitting
documentary evidence to support their contention that the
offense committed was murder.
Judge Villon ordered for the resetting of the arraignment. The
Yabuts entered a plea of not guilty. The petitioners then filed
a Urgent Motion to set aside arraignment.
Secretary Guingona of the DOJ resolved the appeal in favor of
the petitioners. He also ruled that treachery was present.
The Yabuts opposed the Manifestation because they have already
been arraigned and they would be put under double jeopardy.
The Secretary of Justice then set aside his order and the appeal
was held not and academic due to the previous arraignment
of the accused for homicide.
Judge Villon denied the Motion to set aside arraignment. The
motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this
petition for certiorari/prohibition and mandamus.
Issues:
Whether the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor committed grave
abuse of discretion in reinvestigating the case without having
the respondents within the custody of the law and for filing
the information pending the appeal of the resolution with the
DOJ.
Whether Hon. Villon acted with grave abuse of discretion in
proceeding with the arraignment and for denying the Motions
to set aside the arraignment.
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of
discretion in reconsidering his order.
Decision:
Petition is GRANTED.
Alfonso-Reyes was guilty of having acted with grave abuse of
discretion for conducting a reinvestigation despite the fact that the
Yabuts were still at large. Though Sec. 5, Rule 112 states that the
prosecutor is not bound by the findings of the judge who conducted
the investigation, the resolution should be based on the review of
the record and evidence transmitted. Hence, she should have
sustained the recommendation since all the accused, except
Yambao, failed to file their counter-affidavits. It is impossible for
Alfonso-Reyes to not have known the appeal filed with the DOJ. The
filing of an appeal is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the filing of an
appeal once an information is filed.
 Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion for
deferring the resolution to the motion for a hold departure order.
Since the accused were out on bail, the Motion should have been
granted since they could have easily fled. Though he is not bound to
the resolution of the DOJ, he should have perused the documents
submitted.

The DOJ was also in grave abuse of its discretion for setting
aside its order. In doing so, it has relinquished its power of control
and supervision of the Public Prosecutor. The state has been
deprived of due process. Hence, the dismissal of the case is null and
void and double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused.