de Lima vs. Reyes
de Lima vs. Reyes
CASES REPORTED
____________________
G.R. No. 209330. January 11, 2016.*
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, vs. MARIO JOEL T.
REYES, respondent.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
2
3
4
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
5
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
LEONEN, J.:
The Secretary of Justice has the discretion, upon motion
or motu proprio, to act on any matter that may cause a
probable miscarriage of justice in the conduct of a
preliminary investigation. This action may include, but is
not limited to, the conduct of a reinvestigation.
Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
questioning the regularity of preliminary investigation
becomes moot after the trial court completes its
determination of probable cause and issues a warrant of
arrest.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the
Decision1 dated March 19, 2013 and Resolution2 dated
September 27,
_______________
7
_______________
3 Id., at p. 169.
4 Id.
5 Id., at p. 846, Department of Justice Resolution dated March 12,
2012.
6 Id., at p. 53, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 19, 2013.
7 Id.
8 Id., at p. 1066.
8
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
15 Id., at p. 169.
16 Id., at p. 55, Court of Appeals Decision.
17 Id., at p. 170.
18 Id., at p. 55, Court of Appeals Decision
19 Id.
20 Id., at p. 56.
10
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
21 Id.
22 Id., at p. 20, Petition for Review.
23 Id., at pp. 880-944.
24 Id., at p. 56, Court of Appeals Decision.
25 Id.
26 Id., at pp. 52-71.
27 See 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, Sec. 12.
11
the First Panel; therefore, the Second Panel did not have
the authority to assess the admissibility and weight of any
existing or additional evidence.30
The Secretary of Justice, the Second Panel, and Dr.
Inocencio-Ortega filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision dated March 19, 2013. The Motion, however, was
denied by the Court of Appeals in the Resolution31 dated
September 27, 2013.
In its Resolution, the Court of Appeals stated that the
Secretary of Justice had not shown the alleged miscarriage
of justice sought to be prevented by the creation of the
Second Panel since both parties were given full opportunity
to present their evidence before the First Panel. It also
ruled that the evidence examined by the Second Panel was
not additional evidence but “forgotten evidence”32 that was
already available before the First Panel during the conduct
of the preliminary investigation.33
Aggrieved, the Secretary of Justice and the Second
Panel filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari34
assailing
_______________
12
_______________
13
_______________
14
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
49 235 Phil. 465; 151 SCRA 462 (1987) [Per J. Gancayco, En Banc].
50 Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
51 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Rightfield
Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015, 763 SCRA 197
[Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing United Coconut Planters Bank v. E.
Ganzon, Inc., 609 Phil. 104, 122; 591 SCRA 321, 338 (2009) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, Third Division].
52 See Santos v. Go, 510 Phil. 137; 473 SCRA 350 (2005) [Per J.
Quisumbing, First Division].
15
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
16
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
17
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
18
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
58 G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 185 [Per J. Bersamin,
First Division].
59 Id., at p. 197.
60 Id., at pp. 196-197, citing Bautista v. Court of Appeals, supra note
55.
61 Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 2.
19
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
62 Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015, 760 SCRA
652 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc], citing Ongsuco v. Malones, 619 Phil. 492,
508; 604 SCRA 499, 516 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
63 Carolino v. Senga, G.R. No. 189649, April 20, 2015, 756 SCRA 55
[Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing Heirs of Spouses Luciano and
Consolacion Venturillo v. Quitain, 536 Phil. 839, 846; 506 SCRA 102, 110
(2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
64 United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko, 560 Phil. 581, 591; 534
SCRA 322, 331 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division], citing
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Tonda, 392 Phil. 797, 814; 338 SCRA
254, 270-271 (2000) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division].
65 See Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 1. See also Unilever Philippines, Inc. v.
Tan, G.R. No. 179367, January 29, 2014, 715 SCRA 36 [Per J. Brion,
Second Division].
66 597 Phil. 47; 577 SCRA 51 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third
Division].
20
_______________
21
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
69 See Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 1(a) and Rule 112, Sec. 1.
70 Id., Rule 112, Sec. 4.
71 Department Circular No. 70 (2000).
72 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, Secs. 2 and 4.
22
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
23
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
74 344 Phil. 207; 278 SCRA 656 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
75 Id., at pp. 228-229; pp. 676-677.
76 A.M. No. RTJ-05-1909, 495 Phil. 30; 455 SCRA 34 (2005) [Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc].
24
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
77 Id., at pp. 41-42; p. 46, citing Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 324
Phil. 568; 254 SCRA 307 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc]; Crespo v.
Mogul, supra note 49; Jalandoni v. Drilon, 383 Phil. 855; 327 SCRA 107
(2000) [Per J. Buena, Second Division]; Vda. de Jacob v. Puno, 216 Phil.
138; 131 SCRA 144 (1984) [Per J. Relova, En Banc].
25
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
26
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
81 Id., at p. 1067.
82 Auto Prominence Corporation v. Winterkorn, supra note 66.
83 607 Phil. 754; 590 SCRA 95 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second
Division].
27
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
28
_______________
87 Id.
88 219 Phil. 402; 134 SCRA 438 (1985) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En
Banc].
89 Id., at p. 428; pp. 461-462, citing Trocio v. Manta, 203 Phil. 618; 118
SCRA 241 (1982) [Per J. Relova, First Division]; and Hashim v. Boncan,
71 Phil. 216 (1941) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
90 92 Phil. 1051 (1953) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
29
_______________
30
_______________
vasa, En Banc]; and People v. Gomez, 202 Phil. 395; 117 SCRA 72
(1982) [Per J. Relova, First Division].
94 Crespo v. Mogul, supra note 49.
31
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge
on what to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its exclusive
jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the
case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It
does not matter if this is done before or after the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
_______________
33
_______________
98 Id., at p. 656.
99 Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
34
Petition dismissed.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/34
4/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 779
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178b0b2373621a3a858003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/34