Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Fourth Judicial Region Branch 52, Puerto Princesa City PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus26839 Crim. Case No.

MARIO JOEL T. REYES, Accused. x-----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION OF MARCH 19, 2013 BY DISMISSING CASE AND RECALLING WARRANTS OF ARREST AGAINST ACCUSED
Accused MARIO JOEL T. REYES, by counsel, respectfully states: 1. The present Information against Accused was filed pursuant to the Resolution dated March 12, 2012 of Assistant State Prosecutors Stewart Allan A. Mariano, Vilmar M. Barcellano, and Gerard Gaerlan (second panel of prosecutors) after reinvestigating I.S. No. IV-INQ-11A00005. The reinvestigation was conducted pursuant to Department Order No. 710 dated September 7, 2011 issued by Secretary Leila de Lima. 2. In the Resolution dated March 12, 2012, the second panel of prosecutors reversed the Resolutions dated June 8, 2011 and September 2, 2011 of the initial preliminary investigation and found probable cause to hold Accused for trial for murder for the death of Dr. Gerardo Gerry Ortega. The preliminary investigation was conducted by a first panel of prosecutors composed of Senior Assistant State

Prosecutor Edwin Dayog, Assistant State Prosecutors Bryan Jacinto Cacha and John Benedict Medina. 3. On March 13, 2012, the present Information was filed against Accused, among others, before the Honorable Court. On March 27, 2012, the Honorable Court ordered his arrest. 4. At the time, Accused had a pending Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition dated October 3, 2011 before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 121553). Accused asked the Court of Appeals to annul Department Order No. 710, as well as all proceedings pursuant to it, and to enjoin the reinvestigation. Accused also prayed for the issuance of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. 5. In view of the filing of the present Information and the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him, Accused filed a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition dated April 2, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 121553. He impleaded the Honorable Court as additional respondent and prayed for additional reliefs as follows: 1. The Honorable Court immediately issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City from proceeding further with Criminal Case No. 26839 and enforcing the warrant of arrest against Petitioner pending the Honorable Courts final resolution of the present case; 2. After due judgment be rendered: proceedings, for its

a) Granting the petition certiorari and prohibition and supplement; b) Making the injunction permanent;

preliminary

c) Annuling and setting aside Department Order No. 710, the reinvestigation proceedings conducted by the Department of Justice, and the Resolution dated March 12, 2012; d) Annulling and setting aside the Information and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 26839, including the Omnibus Order and warrant of arrest dated March 27, 2012, and permanently enjoining the arrest and prosecution of Petitioner. 6. In a Decision dated March 19, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted Accuseds petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Court of Appeals held that Secretary de Lima gravely abused her discretion in issuing Department Order No. 710 and creating the second panel of prosecutors to reinvestigate I.S. No. IV-INQ-11A-00005. Moreover, the Court of Appeals held, the second panel of prosecutors exceeded its authority when it reversed the resolutions of its co-equal first panel of prosecutors. (Copy of the Decision dated March 19, 2013 is attached as Annex 1 hereof.) 7. As a consequence of the abuses committed by Secretary de Lima and the second panel of prosecutors, the Court of Appeals nullified Department Order No. 710 and the Resolution dated March 12, 2012 and ordered the reinstatement of the resolutions of the first panel of prosecutors. Thus: In closing, We find a patent grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in Public Respondents creation of the second Panel of Prosecutors via Department Order No. 710. x x x. As a consequence of the procedural flaws committed by public respondent, Petitioner Mario Joel T. Reyes stands charged for Murder before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City in Criminal Case No.
3

26839 for which a warrant of arrest has been issued against him. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, We hereby grant the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition and judgment is hereby rendered: a. DECLARING as NULL and VOID Department Order No. 710 including the resolution of the second Panel of Prosecutors dated March 12, 2012; and b. REINSTATING the Resolutions of the first Panel of Prosecutors dated June 8, 2011 and September 2, 2011.1 8. In view of the foregoing ruling of the Court of Appeals, it is clear that the Honorable Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the present case as against Accused. 9. It is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the accusation.2 As held by the Supreme Court: The case of Villa is authority for the principle that lack of authority on the part of the filing officer prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law while jurisdiction over the case is invested by the act of plaintiff and attaches upon the filing of the complaint or information. Hence, while a court may have jurisdiction over the subject matter, like a violation of the SSS Law, it does not acquire jurisdiction over the case itself
1 2

See Annex 1 hereof, pp. 18-19. People v. Garfin, G.R. No. 153176, March 29, 2004, citing Villa v. Ibaez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951).

until its jurisdiction is invoked with the filing of the information. In the United States, an information has been held as a jurisdictional requirement upon which a defendant stands trial. Thus, it has been ruled that in the absence of probable cause, the court lacks jurisdiction to try the criminal offense. x x x.3 (Emphasis supplied.) 10. In the present case, the Information against Accused is null and void because it was filed by the second panel of prosecutors, whose authority, Department Order No. 710, and Resolution dated March 12, 2012 have been declared null and void by the Court of Appeals. Essentially, the present Information was filed by an unauthorized person and therefore could not have been the basis of Accuseds prosecution. As held by the Supreme Court, this defect is not a mere remediable defect of form, but a defect that could not be cured.4 11. Moreover, as a necessary consequence of the nullification of Department Order No. 710 and the Resolution dated March 12, 2012, there is no probable cause to hold Accused for trial for the death of Gerry Ortega. The Court of Appeals, in fact, ordered the reinstatement of the resolutions of the first panel of prosecutors, which dismissed the complaint against Accused for lack of probable cause. As the first panel of prosecutors held in its Resolution dated June 8, 2011: x x x. These uncorroborated statements of Edrad in his extra-judicial confession cannot support Gov. Carrions indictment for murder. Section 28, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another This rule, known as the rule of res inter alios, applies to extra-judicial
3 4

People v. Garfin, supra, note 2. Citations omitted. Id., citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 143618-41, July 30, 2002.

confessions (People vs. Alegre, et al., L30423, 7 Nov. 1976). Hence, Edrads extra-judicial confession is not admissible against Gov. Carrion (People vs. Amajul, et al., L-14626-27, 28 Feb. 1961). Neither may Edrads extrajudicial confession be admitted in evidence as extra-judicial admission of a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court. To be admissible under this Rule, it is required, among other things, that there be independent evidence of the participation of the alleged co-conspirator in the conspiracy. Where there is no such evidence, the extra-judicial admission is not admissible against the alleged coconspirator (People vs. Guittap, G.R. No. 144621, 9 May 2003). These exclusionary rules of evidence can be invoked during preliminary investigations (see Tamargo vs. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, 19 Jan. 2010). x x x. The same holding applies to Gov. Reyes x x x. 12. In its Resolution of September 2, 2011, the first panel of prosecutors affirmed its finding that no probable cause existed against Accused. Hence, in the absence of probable cause, the court lacks jurisdiction to try the criminal offense. x x x.5 13. Based on the foregoing, the present case should immediately be dismissed against Accused for lack of jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.6 Moreover, the warrant for his arrest should immediately be recalled. 7 14. While the adverse parties in CA-G.R. SP No. 121553 may still file motions for reconsideration or appeal
5 6 7

People v. Garfin, supra. Rule 117, Sec. 3, Rules of Court. Id., Sec. 5.

from the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 19, 2013, this should not prevent the Honorable Court from granting immediate relief to Accused. The urgency of relief consequent to the dismissal of this case is clear from the Rules of Court, which mandate that:

SEC. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. x x x. If no order [that another complaint or information be filed] is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within the time specified in the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge.8 (Emphasis supplied.) 15. Conversely, in the present case where Accused is not in custody, he shall not be arrested. The purpose of arrest is to bind the accused to answer for the commission of an offense.9 But in this case, there is no probable cause to prosecute Accused and the Court of Appeals has ordered the reinstatement of the dismissal of the case against him. As there is no basis to hold Accused for trial, there is also no basis to place him in custody. 16. Moreover, the Court of Appeals Decision of March 19, 2013 is immediately executory. This is in accord with Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides: SEC. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. Judgments in actions for injunction x x x shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying,
8 9

Rule 117. Rule 113, Sec. 1.

restoring or granting the injunction x x x. The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party. (Emphasis supplied.) 17. In the present case, Accuseds supplemental petition before the Court of Appeals impleaded the Honorable Court as a respondent for the purpose of preventing it from giving effect to the void Department Order No. 710 and Resolution dated March 12, 2012. Thus, Accused prayed for the following reliefs: (a) That the present Information and proceedings, including the Omnibus Order and warrant of arrest dated March 27, 2012, be nullified and set aside; That the arrest and prosecution of Accused be permanently enjoined; and That the Honorable Court be enjoined from proceeding further with the present case against Accused.

(b)

(c)

Clearly, CA-G.R. SP No. 121553 partook of the nature of an action for injunction. 10 Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court therefore should be applied. As held by the Supreme Court En Banc in the early case of Kabiling v. Pea:11
18.

x x x. Consequently, Rule 39, section 4, should be applied. By virtue of this provision, unless otherwise ordered by the court which is not the case here a judgment in an action for injunction ... shall not be stayed after its

10

11

Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc. , 97 SCRA 158, 177 (1980). G.R. No. L-1268, September 30, 1947.

rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of appeal.12 19. The Court of Appeals Decision of March 19, 2013, by granting Accuseds petition for certiorari and prohibition, necessarily granted also Accuseds prayer for injunctive relief. In other words, the nullification of the finding of probable cause to hold Accused for trial and the reinstatement of the initial resolutions dismissing the case against him meant that the present Information and warrant of arrest against Accused were also nullified and the Honorable Court enjoined from effecting his arrest and prosecution. 20. This was also the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116057, entitled Panfilo M. Lacson v. RTC Manila, Branch 18, et al., which was Senator Lacsons petition for certiorari and prohibition from the trial courts order to arrest him for the murder of the late Salvador Bubby Dacer. In a Decision dated February 3, 2011, the Court of Appeals granted Senator Lacsons petition and nullified the trial courts finding of probable cause against Senator Lacson. Subsequently, in a Resolution dated March 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals declared its Decision of February 3, 2011 to be immediately executory. According to the Court of Appeals: Secondly, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, assailing the validity of the Orders dated February 4, 2010 and July 23, 2010. As relief, petitioner prayed for the following: 1) the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order against respondents, their successors, agents and other persons acting under their authority, restraining them from enforcing the warrants of arrest issued against petitioner; 2) the issuance of a preliminary injunction and thereafter a
12

Id.

permanent injunction; 3) the nullification and setting aside of the assailed Orders and the warrants of arrest issued against petitioner; 4) the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 10272905 and 10272906; and 5) for other just and equitable reliefs. Although, in our Resolution dated November 26, 2010, We denied the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, nonetheless, after a thorough evaluation of the arguments of the parties and the pertinent law and jurisprudence, on February 3, 2011, We rendered a Decision granting the instant petition, nullifying and setting aside the Orders dated February 4, 2010 and July 23, 2010 of public respondent court finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioner, and ordered the dismissal of the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 10272905 & 10272906. Now, with the granting of the instant petition which also expressly nullified and set-aside the Orders dated February 4, 2010 and July 23, 2010 as well as the dismissal of the criminal cases filed against petitioner, under the circumstances, despite the fact that the People of the Philippines can still elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, out of respect to the Second Highest Court of the land and following the hierarchy of courts, the respondent court and its agents or other persons acting under its authority should refrain from enforcing or implementing the arrest warrants issued against petitioner. It would not be prudent on the part of the respondents to implement the arrest warrants we
10

nullified and set-aside in Our Decision dated February 3, 2011. While Our Decision is not yet final and executory, until Our Decision will be reversed and set-aside by the Supreme Court and the arrest warrants will be reinstated, it would not be proper and prudent to arrest the petitioner.13 (Emphasis supplied.) Likewise, in the present case, until the Court of Appeals Decision of March 19, 2013 is reversed and set aside, the resolutions of the first panel of prosecutors stand there is no probable cause to prosecute Accused for the death of Gerry Ortega. To emphasize, in the absence of probable cause, the court lacks jurisdiction to try the criminal offense. x x x.14 Consequently, the Honorable Court should immediately dismiss the present case and recall the warrant of arrest against Accused.
21.

22. Based on the foregoing, and considering that the Court of Appeals has not ordered otherwise, its Decision of March 19, 2013 shall be enforceable after [its] rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom. 15 As held by the Supreme Court, no special reason need even be invoked for this.16 Otherwise, to go on with the arrest and prosecution of Accused would be enforcing the very act that the Court of Appeals has already declared to be illegal and violative of Accuseds constitutional right to due process of law. This, to be sure, would defeat the reason for Section 4 of Rule 39 as follows: x x x. The aim is to stop the act complained of immediately because the court has found it necessary to serve the interests of justice involved in the litigation already resolved by it after hearing and reception of the evidence of both parties.17
13

14 15 16 17

Copy of the Resolution dated March 18, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 116057 is attached as Annex 2 hereof. People v. Garfin, supra. Rule 139, Sec. 4, Rules of Court. Foto-Quick, Inc. v. Lapena, Jr., 195 SCRA 66, 72 (1991). Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc. , supra, p. 178.

11

PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and conformably with law and jurisprudence, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court immediately implement the Decision dated March 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121553 by: (1) dismissing the present case against Accused; and (2) recalling the warrant for his arrest. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, March 26, 2013.

ONGKIKO MANHIT CUSTODIO & ACORDA (ocmalaw) Counsel for Accused th 15 Floor, Citibank Tower 8741 Paseo de Roxas corner Villar Street Salcedo Village, Makati City 1227 Tel. No. (632) 819-1624; Fax No. (632) 819-2978 E-mail: ocmalaw@eastern.com.ph By: DEMETRIO C. CUSTODIO, JR. Roll of Attorneys No. 33405 IBP OR No. 923167, Manila III, 0109-13 PTR OR No. MKT 3676835, Makati City, 01-08-13
12

MCLE Compliance No. III-0017525, 6-22-10

LOVE JOY CECILIA C. BRILLANTES Roll of Attorneys No. 55703 IBP OR No. 923172, Quezon City, 01-09-13 PTR OR No. MKT 3676840, Makati City, 01-08-13 MCLE Compliance No. III-0015000, 0430-10

Notice of Hearing and Copy Furnished: BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 52, Puerto Princesa City ASP STEWART ALLAN A. MARIANO ASP VILMAR M. BARCELLANO ASP GERARD E. GAERLAN Department of Justice Padre Faura, Manila OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Puerto Princesa City, Palawan POBLADOR BAUTISTA & REYES Lead Private Prosecutor 5th Floor, SEDCCO 1 Building 120 Rada corner Legaspi Streets Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City Greetings: Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Friday, April 5, 2013 at 8:30 A.M.
13

LOVE JOY CECILIA C. BRILLANTES Explanation on Manner of Filing and Service Filing and service on the Office of the City Prosecutor were made by registered mail due to distance, which makes personal filing and service impracticable. Copy was also filed by courier in order to ensure prompt receipt by the Honorable Court. LOVE JOY CECILIA C. BRILLANTES

14