G.R. No. 127107 October 12, 1998 PETER PAUL DIMATULAC and VERONICA DIMATULAC, petitioners, vs. HON.

SESINANDO VILLON in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 54; HON. TEOFISTO GUINGONA, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice; MAYOR SANTIAGO YABUT, SERVILLANO YABUT, MARTIN YABUT and FORTUNATO MALLARI, respondents.

FACTS: On the fateful day of November 03, 1995, PO3 Virgilio Dimatulac was shot dead at his residence in Brgy. San Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga. Sworn statements of his son Peter Paul Dimatulac and one police officer directly pointed Mayor Santiago Yabut, his siblings and several others including two John Does to be responsible for the slay. Two days later a complaint for murder was filed before MCTC of Macabebe-Masantol in Macabebe, Pampanga by a certain police officer of Masantol Police Station against all the accused. After conducting preliminary investigation through series of inquiries and finding probable cause, the judge-designate issued warrants of arrest and directed them to file their counter-affidavits. He also recommended to the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga to file an information for murder against the accused. Meanwhile, of the seventeen accused, only four were arrested while the alleged mastermind Mayor Yabut and others were still at large at that time. The Assistant Provl Prosec. conducted a reinvestigation and issued a Resolution that the accused be charged with homicide only. A bail of only P20,000.00 for each of the accused was also recommended. Complainants who are the heirs of the deceased expeditiously appealed the said resolution to the Secretary of Justice right before the Information for Homicide was filed, citing errors on the appreciation of attending circumstances qualifying the killing to murder. Notwithstanding the appeal, an Information for Homicide was filed against the accused and the case was assigned to Judge Roura of Branch 55, RTC Macabebe against the Yabuts & John Doe alias Danny Manalili. The judge approved the cash bonds of the Yabuts and recalled the arrest warrants. To note, the accused filed their bonds only after filing of the information. The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Defer proceedings pending resolution of their appeal to DOJ and another Motion to Issue Hold Departure Order against all accused. But Judge Roura denied the first motion holding that there was an indication that the Sec. of Justice had given due course to the appeal and deferred resolution of the second motion until the accused who are out on bail are arraigned. He also set the arraignment on a certain date. Denying Motion for Reconsideration, private prosecutor filed before C.A. 1) Motion to Inhibit against Judge Roura and 2) Petition for Prohibition to enjoin from proceeding with the arraignment. The Judge voluntarily inhibited himself from the case which was then transferred to Branch 54 presided by public respondent Judge Villon. Meanwhile, Public Prosec. filed a Manifest & Comment with the Trial Court wherein he opposed the Motion to inhibit and manifested that the offense committed is homicide and not murder. Also, he declared that he will disallow the Prov. Prosec. to participate or handle the prosecution of the case. The CA deferred the action on the prayer for a TRO until after the required comment from respondents is submitted. In the meantime, Judge Villon reset the arraignment of the accused who, during arraignment, all pleaded not guilty to the homicide charge. Troubled by the conduct of arraignment and its possible devastating outcome, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Set Aside Arraignment. Judge Villon responded through issuance of an order directing the accused to file their comment on the motion. On the other hand, the DOJ Secretary issued an order towards Prov. Prosecutor that the information be amended from homicide to murder holding that treachery was present in the killing. The accused moved for reconsideration of the said order, alleging that they would otherwise be placed in double jeopardy; and citing DOJ Order No. 223, Series of 1993, particularly Section 4 thereof, which provides that no appeal to the justice secretary shall be entertained once the accused has already been arraigned. In response to this, the justice secretary issued a Resolution setting aside his Order, reasoning that petitioners appeal was rendered moot and academic by the arraignment for homicide. Judge Villon cited this Resolution of the justice secretary, as well as Section 4 of DOJ Order No. 223, Series of 1993 in denying petitioners Motion to Set Aside Arraignment. Judge Villon denied the petitioners reconsideration on the denial of its latest motion invoking the Yabuts right to a speedy trial. On the other hand, the CA dismissed the petition before it for being moot and academic in view of Judge Rouras voluntary inhibition, the accuseds arraignment, and the justice secretarys dismissal of petitioners appeal which was mooted by the said arraignment. Concluding these numerous antecedent pleadings is the instant petition in the form of special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions, thereby departing from their sworn and committed duty to serve the ends of justice

RULING: On the part of the Provincial Prosecutor 1. By virtue of the arrest warrants for the accused issued by the MCTC with no bail recommendation, the public prosecutors should had first demanded that they surrender so as for them to be brought under the custody of the law instead of permitting them to submit their counter-affidavits. 2. The amount of bond is far commensurate the circumstances present in the case, i.e. a) they were charged with homicide b) they were at that time fugitives from justice evading the service of arrest warrants against them. 3. Instead of paying heed to the valid and convincing arguments of the offended parties and despite the pendency of the appeal to C.A., public prosecutors still persisted to file the information for homicide. 4. The trial prosecutors Datu announced the oust of private prosecutors to participate in the prosecution of the case simply because the latter had asked for the inhibition of Judge Roura. This is in contrast to the Sec. 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which states that unless the offended parties had not waived the civil action nor expressly reserved their right to institute it separately from the criminal action, then they had the right to intervene in the criminal case. Moreover petitioners had the right to appeal to the DOJ from the resolution of public prosecutors as conferred by Sec. 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which states that:
If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for the dismissal of the complaint or information.

5. Lastly, the appeal to the DOJ is an invocation of the Secretarys power of control over prosecutors which finds its basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. On the part of the respondent judge 1. Judge Villon erred in deferring the resolution on the motion to hold departure order until all the accused are set for arraignment which is glaringly inconsistent to the very purpose of the motion, i.e. to forestall any attempt on the part of the accused to leave the country whenever they want to. 2. He must have taken into consideration the pendency of the petitioners appeal with the DOJ before proceeding to the arraignment since this is the most prudent thing to do. 3. He failed to scrutinize the records of the case with due diligence, instead hastily set the arraignment of the Yabuts on the assailed information for homicide. With this, the State and the offended parties were deprived of due process. On the part of Secretary of Justice 1. DOJ Sec. erred in reconsidering its first resolution solely on the basis of the information that the accused had already been arraigned. By doing so, the department renounced its power of control and supervision over the Provincial Prosecutor and the Assistant Provincial Prosecutors of Pampanga; and timidly surrendered to the latter's inappropriate conduct as well as to the undue haste of Judge Roura and Villon in respect of the arraignment of the YABUTs. 2. DOJ should not have been so complacent that it did no longer inquire into the development of the case to ascertain whether theres regularity in the arraignment.

To conclude: when the State is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case is void, hence double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused. Thus on the present case the conduct of arraignment and plea of not guilty are held void. The original resolution of the DOJ directing the prosecutors that the information be amended from homicide to murder is reinstated.