GALVEZ v.

CA
G.R. No. 114046
October 24, 1994
Prepared by: Jacinto Anton U. Amante
FACTS:
On November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez and Godofredo Diego were
charged in three separate informations with homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide.
The said petitioners posted their bail bonds and in effect, were released from detention.
On November 15, 1993, in order for him to review the evidence on record, Bulacan
Provincial Prosecutor Liberator L. Reyes filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment. Pursuant to a
DOJ Department Order, respondent Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio was designated Acting
Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan with the instructions to conduct a re-investigation of the
aforementioned criminal cases. Thereafter, the proceedings were again suspended by Judge
Villajuan until after the prosecutions request for change of venue shall have been resolved by
the Supreme Court and the termination of the preliminary investigation.
On December 15, 1993 before petitioners could be arrainged for the respective cases,
respondent prosecutor filed an Ex parte Motion to Withdraw Informations, which was granted
by Judge Villajuan. On the same day, the prosecutor filed four new informations against
herein petitioners for murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and for illegal possession of
firearms, which were raffled to Judge Victoria Pornillos. No bail having been recommended
by the said Judge, the arraignment of the accused was issued for December 27, 1993.
On December 27, 1993, the arraignment was reset due to the absence of the
respondent prosecutor. On the same date, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
order granting the withdrawal of the original informations. In addition, a Motion to Quash
the new informations for lack of jurisdiction was filed by petitioners. Judge Pornillos
thereafter denied said motion and directed that a plea of not guilty be entered for petitioners
when the latter refused to enter their plea.
In the meantime, on January 20, 1994, Judge Villajuan granted the motion for
reconsideration by petitioners and thus reinstating the previous criminal cases. However, the
corresponding arraignment was suspended and, in the meanwhile, petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with respondent Court of Appeals which denied
petitionerss motion to quash. Respondent court dismissed this petition, hence the case at
hand.
ISSUE:
Whether the ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations is null and void
on the ground that (a) there was no notice and hearing as required by Sections 4, 5, and 6,
Rule 15 of Rule of Courts; and (b) the appropriate remedy which should have been adopted
by the prosecution was to amend the information by charging the proper offenses pursuat to
Section 14 of Rule 110
HELD:
No. Petitioners assert that the failure of the prosecution to serve them a copy of the
motion to withdraw the original informations and to set said motion for hearing constitutes a
violation of their right to be informed of the proceedings against them. Furthermore, the ex
parte motion should be considered null and void because Judge Villajuan had no authority to
act on it.
The Court stresses that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case, whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the
accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. As explained in Crespo vs. Mogul, 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 cannot therefore be claimed that the prosecutor exceeded
his authority in withdrawing those informations because the same bore the imprimatur of the
court.

As regards the correctness of the courts decision in dismissing the original

informations rather than ordering the amendment thereof, the Court asserts that there has
been no grave abuse of discretion considering that the motion to withdraw was filed and
granted before the petitioners were arraigned. Hence, the risk of double jeopardy is nonexistent. Even if a substitution was made at such stage, petitioners cannot claim double
jeopardy, which is precisely the evil sought to be prevented under the rule on substitution, for
the simple reason that no first jeopardy has as yet attached. Petitioners right to speedy trial
was never violated since the new informations were filed immediately after the motion to
withdraw the original informations was granted. Thus, the petitions for certiorari, mandamus
and habeas corpus are denied.