View full case

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH 'JOJO' V. GREY

FACTS:

Respondent Joseph Grey, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar, and his son, respondent Francis Grey, were charged with murder for the death of Rolando Diocton, an employee of the San Jorge municipal government. The Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Gandara, Samar. The court, however, found the evidence insufficient to link the respondents to the crime and directed the prosecution to present additional evidence. The judge inhibited herself but denied the motion for reconsideration.

The provincial prosecutor filed a petition for change of venue, citing the victim's wife's fear for her life and that of the other witnesses. The Secretary of Justice dismissed the petition for review and respondents' counter charge of perjury, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The prosecution withdrew its motion for change of venue, citing financial difficulties. Respondents opposed the motion and prayed for suspension of proceedings until after the elections.

Respondents filed a petition for change of venue, alleging that the presiding judge was a pawn in a political persecution against them. The Supreme Court denied the petition and directed the judge to hear the case. Judge Navidad ruled that there was probable cause and issued warrants of arrest against respondents. Respondents then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion and political harassment. The Court of Appeals issued a TRO and eventually dismissed the criminal case. The Court of Appeals held that Judge Navidad failed to personally determine the existence of probable cause and that the Information was not supported by the allegations in the affidavits.

The petitioner in this case argued that the respondents committed forum shopping by filing a petition for change of venue before the Supreme Court and a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals. The petitioner alleged that both petitions involved the same subject matter, parties, and issues, which were to enjoin Judge Navidad from proceeding with the trial of the criminal case against them. The petitioner also disputed the Court of Appeals' ruling that Judge Navidad failed to personally determine the existence of probable cause. The petitioner claimed that the judge had personally examined the records and found that there was probable cause based on the sworn statements of the witnesses. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the respondents had not shown any clear and unmistakable right to the relief they sought, and that there were sufficient remedies available to them. The petitioner also contended that criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined, and any exception to this rule must be convincingly established. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the trial court violated the Constitution and prevailing jurisprudence by issuing an order and warrants of arrest hastily and by reversing the finding of another judge who previously heard the case. The court found merit in the petition and decided to address the issue of forum shopping. It explained that forum shopping involves seeking a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari, after an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum. The court also outlined the elements of forum shopping, which include identity of parties, identity of rights and relief prayed for, and identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment in one action will amount to res judicata in the other. Finally, the court highlighted the elements of res judicata, which requires a final judgment on the merits by a court that had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two actions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondents are guilty of forum shopping

  2. Whether the Court's resolution on the petition for change of venue amounts to res judicata that would bar the petition for certiorari before the CA

  3. Whether Judge Navidad gravely abused his discretion in issuing the February 20, 2007 Order and the warrants for respondents' arrest

  4. Whether the judge is required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

  5. Whether Judge Navidad gravely abused his discretion in issuing the warrants of arrest.

  6. Whether the filing of criminal charges against the political rivals was politically motivated.

  7. Whether the allegations of political persecution and harassment were sufficiently proven.

  8. Whether the trial should proceed despite the allegations of political harassment.

RULING:

  1. The respondents are not guilty of forum shopping as they raised different issues and sought different reliefs in the two actions, although both were grounded on the same set of facts.

  2. The Court's resolution on the petition for change of venue does not amount to res judicata that would bar the petition for certiorari before the CA as the elements of forum shopping and res judicata are not present.

  3. Judge Navidad did not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the February 20, 2007 Order and the warrants for respondents' arrest as he made his own personal determination of the existence of probable cause by examining not only the prosecutor's report but also his supporting evidence.

  4. The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge may instead personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or disregard the prosecutor's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. The personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses is only necessary when there is an utter failure of evidence to show the existence of probable cause.

  5. Judge Navidad did not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the warrants of arrest. He complied with the constitutional mandate for personal determination of probable cause before issuing the warrants of arrest. His personal determination found no improper motive on the part of the prosecution and no circumstance which would overwhelm the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

  6. The allegation that the filing of the charges was politically motivated does not justify the prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is evidence to support the charges.

  7. To establish political harassment, it must be proven that the public prosecutor acted in bad faith or lent himself to a scheme that aimed to place respondents in contempt and disrepute. The complainant must possess the power and influence to control the prosecution of cases. In this case, respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of political persecution.

  8. The trial should proceed as a full-blown trial is necessary to determine the truth, test the credibility of the prosecution's and the accused's respective evidence, and determine the guilt or innocence of the respondents.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

  • The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

  • The elements of res judicata are: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

  • The duty of the judge to determine probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest is mandated by Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution. This provision does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents.

  • The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

  • The judge may personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or disregard the prosecutor's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.

  • The personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary only when there is an utter failure of evidence to show the existence of probable cause.

  • In determining the existence of probable cause, the judge should consider the report of the investigating prosecutor, the affidavit and documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any.

  • Injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.

  • Exceptions to the rule that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution include protecting the constitutional rights of the accused, ensuring orderly administration of justice or avoiding oppression or multiplicity of actions, when there is a pre-judicial question sub judice, when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority, when the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation, when double jeopardy is clearly apparent, when the court has no jurisdiction over the offense, when there is a case of persecution rather than prosecution, when the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance, when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied, and when a preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of the petitioners.

  • The filing of charges cannot be prohibited solely on the grounds of alleged political motivation if evidence supports the charges.

  • To establish political harassment, it must be proven that the public prosecutor acted in bad faith or lent himself to a scheme to place the accused in contempt and disrepute.

  • A full-blown trial is necessary to determine the truth and the guilt or innocence of the accused.