Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Co vs. Republic
Co vs. Republic
539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 147 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
4 Also referred to as Sgt. Gilbert Reyes. Esperidion R. Solano, with 2nd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Eulogio I. Prima
recommending approval. Provincial Prosecutor Agapito B. Rosales approved
and signed the Joint Resolution.
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 151 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
Sgt. Gilbert Reyes, P.A.[,] with the proper court[,] his allegations of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch
self-defense being evidentiary in nature and another information for
Violation of Domicile against Sgt. Gilbert Reyes and another John 30 (trial court).
11
Doe be filed with the proper court, as the case against SPO2 Ramil In an Order dated 13 September 2002, the trial court
Araas, for lack of probable cause[,] is hereby dismissed. denied the motion to suspend proceedings as well as the
7
SO RESOLVED. motion for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Instead, the
Jocelyn filed a petition for review before the Department of trial court set the cases for preliminary investigation of
8
Justice (DOJ). In a Resolution promulgated on 25 June Jocelyn and her witnesses to determine probable cause.
2002, the DOJ resolved: During the scheduled preliminary investigation on 23
WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution is hereby MODIFIED. The September 2002, only Dr. Minerva Balmacea-Aguirre of
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur is hereby Caramoan Municipal Hospital appeared. Jocelyn and her
directed to file the Information for murder against respondents SPO2 witnesses did not appear for fear for their lives. The private
Ramil Araas, Sgt. Gilbert Reyes, Mayor Marilyn Co, Wilson Co prosecutor moved for the suspension of the judicial
and John Does, and another information for violation of domicile determination of probable cause as he was filing a petition
against respondents SPO2 Ramil Araas, Sgt. Gilbert Reyes and a for change of venue. In an Order dated 14 October 2002, the
certain John Doe. The Provincial Prosecutor is further directed to
report to this Office the action taken within ten (10) days from trial court held in abeyance the presentation of additional
receipt thereof. evidence for judicial determination of probable cause.
SO ORDERED.
9
However, this Court subsequently denied the private
10 prosecutors motion for change of venue.
On 2 July 2002, Provincial Prosecutor Agapito Rosales 12
filed a new Information for Murder against the accused. In an Order dated 19 May 2003, the trial court held that
no probable cause exists against the accused for the crime of
The accused filed a motion to suspend proceedings Murder. The trial court dismissed the Information for Murder
pending the motion for reconsideration of the DOJs 25 June but upheld the Information for Homicide against Sgt. Reyes.
2002 Resolution. Jocelyn, through a private prosecutor, filed The trial court issued another warrant of arrest against Sgt.
a motion for issuance of warrants of arrest against the Reyes.
accused. Jocelyn thereafter filed a motion for inhibition of
Judge Alfredo Cabral (Judge Cabral) for loss of trust and The private prosecutor moved for reconsideration
13
of the
confidence due to the delay in the issuance of the warrants of 19 May 2003 Order. On 13 August 2003, the trial court
arrest. Judge Cabral granted Jocelyns motion and the cases granted the motion and set the presentation of additional
were transferred to the sala of Judge Eufronio K. Maristela evidence for judicial determination of probable cause on 29
of August 2003. Meanwhile, on 12 August 2003, Jocelyn
_______________ executed an Affidavit of Retraction/Desistance absolving the
7 Id., at p. 130. accused, particularly petitioners, from liability for Miguels
8 Id., at pp. 180-187. death. On 28 August 2003, the private prosecutor filed an
9 Id., at p. 187. Omnibus
_______________
10 Id., at p. 189. 5 July 2002 in the RTC Order of 13 September 2002.
11 Id., at pp. 189-193.
12 Id., at pp. 200-202.
13 12 August 2003 in the CA Decision.
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 153 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
Motion to Admit Affidavit of Desistance of Private ber 21, 2003 and December 17, 2003 are hereby reversed and set
aside for being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Complainant Jocelyn Francia and to Dismiss the Case. On 29 lack and/or in excess of jurisdiction. The respondent court, therefore,
August 2003, neither the government nor the private is hereby ordered to enforce the Resolution of the Secretary of
prosecutor appeared at the scheduled hearing. None of the Justice promulgated on 25 June 2002 (Annex I, pp. 153 to 161,
witnesses stated in the subpoena appeared. Rollo) and in pursuance thereto, to re-admit the information filed by
14 Provincial Prosecutor Agapito B. Rosales dated July 4, 2002 (Annex
In an Order dated 21 October 2003, the trial court J, p. 162, Rollo).
dismissed the Information for Murder against SPO2 Araas, SO ORDERED.
16
Clearly, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the
assuming the function of the prosecutor. It should have 3 January 2005 Decision and 30 June 2005 Resolution of the
limited itself to the determination of the existence of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82155.
probable cause for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest SO ORDERED.
against the accused. The Court of Appeals did not err in ***
reversing the trial courts Order which dismissed the Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, Tinga and
information for Murder filed against the accused. Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petitioners Arguments are Evidentiary in Nature Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Petitioners further allege that the Court of Appeals erred in Notes.A preliminary investigation serves not only the
reversing the order of the trial court because there is clearly purposes of the State, but more importantly, it is a significant
no probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest part of freedom and fair play which every individual is
against them. Petitioners allege that the admitted facts show entitled toabsent sufficient evidence to establish probable
that their co-accused who are law enforcers were performing cause, the filing of Informations constitutes grave abuse of
their functions to maintain order and enforce the law. discretion. (Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. Mendoza, 454
Petitioners further allege that the physical evidence, SCRA 386 [2005])
_______________
consisting of the injuries suffered by Miguel, eliminates the
23 See Redulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 167973, 28 February 2007,
element of treachery. Petitioners allege that the location of
_______________ 517 SCRA 110.
22 Id., at pp. 792-794. See also AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, 8 *** As replacement of Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing who is on
June 2007, 524 SCRA 496. official leave per Administrative Circular No. 84-2007.
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 159
Colby Construction and Management Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission
By so issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge is presumed to
have, before issuing the warrant, previously regularly
discharged his duty to personally determine the existence of
probable cause against the accused. (Enriquez vs. Sarmiento,
Jr., 498 SCRA 6 [2006])
o0o