Delima V Reyes

TITLE: SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR STEWART ALLAN
A. MARIANO, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR VIMAR M. BARCELLANO AND

ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR GERARD E. GAERLAN, Petitioners, v. MARIO JOEL T.
REYES, Respondent.
PONENTE: LEONEN, J
DATE PUBLISHED: January 11, 2016
SUMMARY:
PETITIONER/APPELLEE: SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR

STEWART ALLAN A. MARIANO, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR VIMAR M.
BARCELLANO AND ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR GERARD E. GAERLAN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: MARIO JOEL T. REYES
RESOLUTION OF THE LOWER COURT:

(NOT APPLICABLE)
CASE IS STILL UNDER THE PROSECUTION
ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER/APPELLE:

1. Petitioners' position was that the First Panel "appear[ed] to have ignored the rules of
preliminary investigation" when it refused to receive additional evidence that would have been
crucial for the determination of the existence of probable cause. They assert that respondent was
not deprived of due process when the reinvestigation was ordered since he was not prevented
from presenting controverting evidence to Dr. Inocencio-Ortega's additional
43
evidence. Petitioners argue that since the Information had been filed, the disposition of the case
was already within the discretion of the trial court.
ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:

1. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Secretary of Justice had no authority
to order motu proprio the reinvestigation of the case since Dr. Inocencio-Ortega was able to
submit her alleged new evidence to the First Panel when she filed her Motion for Partial
Reconsideration. He argues that all parties had already been given the opportunity to present
their evidence before the First Panel so it was not necessary to conduct a reinvestigation.
2. Respondent argues that the Secretary of Justice's discretion to create a new panel of
prosecutors was not "unbridled" since the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires that there be
compelling circumstances for her to be able to designate another prosecutor to conduct the
reinvestigation. He argues that the Second Panel's Resolution dated March 12, 2012 was void
since the Panel was created by a department order that was beyond the Secretary of Justice's
authority to issue. He further argues that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
since the Information filed by the Second Panel was void.
RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The determination by the Department of Justice of the existence of probable cause is not
a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, the actions of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or
reversing the findings of prosecutors may still be subject to judicial review if it is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.
Under the Rules of Court, a writ of certiorari is directed against "any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions."50 A quasi-judicial function is "the action, discretion,
etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain
the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official
action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."51 Otherwise stated, an administrative
agency performs quasi-judicial functions if it renders awards, determines the rights of opposing
parties, or if their decisions have the same effect as the judgment of a court. 52
In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence of an
accused. The prosecutor only determines "whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent-is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial.
A writ of prohibition, on the other hand, is directed against "the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions."61 The Department of Justice is not a court of law and its officers do not perform quasi-
judicial functions. The Secretary of Justice's review of the resolutions of prosecutors is also not a
ministerial function.
Therefore, any question on whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming, reversing, or modifying the
resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.
Under existing laws, rules of procedure, and jurisprudence, the Secretary of Justice is
authorized to issue Department Order No. 710.
The filing of the information and the issuance by the trial court of the respondent's warrant
of arrest has already rendered this Petition moot.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for being moot. Branch 52 of the Regional Trial
Court of Palawan is DIRECTED to proceed with prosecution of Criminal Case No. 26839.
RELEVANCE TO THE CURRENT TOPIC:

SECTION 4, RULE 112, RULES OF COURT

Delima V Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delima V Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE: SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR STEWART ALLAN

A. MARIANO, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR VIMAR M. BARCELLANO AND

DATE PUBLISHED: January 11, 2016

PETITIONER/APPELLEE: SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: MARIO JOEL T. REYES

RESOLUTION OF THE LOWER COURT:

ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER/APPELLE:

ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:

RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

RELEVANCE TO THE CURRENT TOPIC:

You might also like