View full case

LIGAYA V. SANTOS v. DOMINGO I. ORDA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72962. The incidents being reviewed started with the shooting of Dale B. Orda, the son of respondent Domingo Orda, Jr. Another incident occurred on April 2, 2001, where Francis Orda, another son of the respondent, was shot to death. An Information for murder was filed against Rolly Tonion and Jhunrey Soriano. Gina Azarcon testified as a witness in opposition to the accused's petition for bail. Respondent then submitted separate affidavits executed by Ernesto M. Regala and his son, Dennis C. Regala, implicating Ligaya Santos. Respondent filed an affidavit-complaint against Santos, Edna Cortez, and Ronnie Ybañez for the murder of his son Francis. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause against Santos and Cortez for murder. Azarcon later implicated Barangay Kagawad Christopher Castillo, his brother Girlie Castillo, and Robert Bunda for the killing of Francis. The trial court ordered the prosecutor to submit additional evidence against Cortez. Sabino M. Frias executed an affidavit implicating Santos, Cortez, the Castillo brothers, Bunda, and Pedro Jimenez in the killing of Francis. Withdrawal of the Informations against certain accused was granted by the trial court based on the finding of the Secretary of Justice that there was no probable cause. The petitioner argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to withdraw the Informations as directed by the Secretary of Justice, and that the court's action did not prejudice the refiling of the cases in the future.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the prosecution's motion to withdraw the Informations and lifting the warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

  2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in directly reinstating the criminal complaints without affording the trial court the opportunity to exercise its judicial prerogative.

  3. Whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the criminal cases against the private respondents without making an independent evaluation of the evidence.

  4. Whether the dismissal order was issued in violation of the private complainant's right to due process.

  5. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to withdraw the Informations without waiting for the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by the private complainant?

  6. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the private complainant?

  7. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a case involving an offense committed within a military reservation.

  8. Whether or not the Court Martial has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by military personnel within a military reservation.

RULING:

  1. The appellate court granted the petition based on the contention that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to withdraw the Informations. The court held that once a complaint or information is filed in court, the disposition of the case, such as dismissal or conviction, rests in the sound discretion of the court. The fiscal may retain control of the prosecution of the case, but he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The court emphasized that the determination of the case is within the exclusive jurisdiction and competence of the court. Thus, the trial court, in this case, was found to have relinquished its duty to make an independent evaluation of the merits of the case by solely relying on the recommendation of the prosecution.

  2. Yes, the trial court committed an error in dismissing the criminal cases without making an independent evaluation of the evidence. The Court held in Crespo v. Mogul that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, the disposition of the case rests within the exclusive jurisdiction and discretion of the trial court. The trial court should not solely rely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice in determining whether to dismiss the case or not. The trial court must make an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record.

  3. Yes, the dismissal order was issued in violation of the private complainant's right to due process. The trial court should not have simply adopted the position of the prosecution or the Secretary of Justice in dismissing the case. It is the duty of the trial court to independently evaluate the evidence and determine whether there is a prima facie case.

  4. The Supreme Court held that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to withdraw the Informations without waiting for the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by the private complainant. The trial court abdicated its judicial power and acted as a mere surrogate of the Secretary of Justice. The trial court also acted with inordinate haste. The court had already acquired jurisdiction over the cases when the Informations were filed; hence, it had jurisdiction to resolve the motion of the public prosecutor, one way or the other, on its merits. While it may be true that the accused could be incarcerated, the same does not justify ignoring the rules and running roughshod over the rights of the respondent.

  5. The Supreme Court also held that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the private complainant without the July 5, 2002 Order becoming final and executory. Until and unless the July 5, 2002 Order shall have become final and executory, the Informations filed with the court were not yet considered withdrawn. On the other hand, if the trial court had granted the motion for reconsideration of the respondent and set aside its July 5, 2002 Order, there would no longer be a need to refile the Informations.

  6. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a case involving an offense committed within a military reservation. The military reservation is not a general area where the military has exclusive control, but it is still subject to the jurisdiction of civilian courts unless specifically declared by law as a place where military offenses should be tried exclusively.

  7. While the Court Martial has jurisdiction over offenses committed by military personnel within a military reservation, this jurisdiction is not exclusive. The military tribunal and the civil court have concurrent jurisdiction over certain offenses committed by military personnel, unless the offense falls under those specifically enumerated in the Rules of Court, which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court Martial.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of the court.

  • The trial court has the exclusive jurisdiction and competence to determine the case and should make an independent evaluation of its merits.

  • The fiscal may retain control of the prosecution, but he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court.

  • The trial court should not be reduced to a mere rubber stamp by solely relying on the recommendation of the prosecution.

  • The trial court has the exclusive jurisdiction and discretion to determine the disposition of a criminal case once a complaint or information is filed.

  • The trial court should make an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record.

  • The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice and may either agree or disagree with the recommendation.

  • Reliance solely on the findings of the prosecution or the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial court's duty and jurisdiction.

  • The dismissal order must not violate the private complainant's right to due process.

  • The trial court has jurisdiction to resolve a motion to withdraw Informations filed by the public prosecutor, even if warrants of arrest have already been issued against the accused.

  • Justice and equity should be observed not only for the accused but also for the State and the private complainant.

  • The court cannot order the refiling of an Information if the Department of Justice or the Public Prosecutor's Office refuses to do so, unless the order denying the motion to withdraw Informations becomes final and executory.

  • The trial court should wait for the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by the private complainant before resolving the motion to withdraw Informations.

  • Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over offenses committed within a military reservation.

  • Concurrent jurisdiction of the military tribunal and the civil court over certain offenses committed by military personnel within a military reservation.