CASE DIGEST: Adasa vs Abalos

February 19, 2007

Facts: Respondent Cecille Abalos alleged in the complaints and affidavits that
petitioner Bernadette Adasa was encashed two checks issued in the name of the
respondent through deceit without knowledge of respondent Abalos. Adasa failed to
pay to the proceeds of the checks despite demands of Abalos. Adasa filed a counteraffidavit admitting that she received and encashed the checks and alleged further in
a supplemental affidavit that Bebie Correa instead received the 2 checks and that
she left the country. The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Iligan City issued a
resolution finding probable cause against Adasa and ordered for filing of two
separate informations for Estafa through falsification of commercial document by a
private individual. This petition only concerns one of the two (Criminal Case #8782)
criminal cases (8781 & 8782) that were docketed. Petitioner Adasa filed a motion
upon the trial court in order for the OCP to conduct a reinvestigation, in which the
OCP has reaffirmed its finding of probable cause. Adasa has entered a not guilty
plea during her arrangement on October 1, 2001 and later filed a petition for review
before the DOJ where it reversed and set aside the resolution of the OCP and
ordering it to withdraw the information for estafa.

Respondent Abalos filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the DOJ should
have dismissed the petition for review outright contending that Sec 7 of DOJ Circular
no 70 mandates that If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the
appealed resolution the petition shall not be given due course if the accused had
already been arraigned the aggrieved party cannot file a petition for review as the
secretary of Justice shall deny it outright.

The trial court has granted the petitioners motion to withdraw information and
dismissed the criminal case, on February 2003. Respondent filed a petition for
certiorari before the CA on the DOJ resolution and it reversed the sad resolution. The
appellate court emphasized that DOJ Circular 70 Sec 7 used the phrase shall not.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari contending that section 12 of the same
DOJ Circular used the word may that would give discretion to the Secretary of
Justice to entertain an appeal, thus this petition.

Issue: WON the overall language and the intent of DOJ Circular no 70 is directory
that it would give discretion to the Secretary of Justice to entertain an appeal even if
the accused has been arraigned.

Held: No. the court held that CA is correct, the DOJ cannot give an appeal/petition
for review due course and must dismiss such actions if the accused has already
been arraigned. Therefore in Sec 12 if the ground for the dismissal is the
arraignment of the accused, it must go back and act upon through Section 7. If Sec
12 is given a directory application it would render earlier mandatory provisions
invalid/negligible and would undermine the main objectives of the said circular
which is for the expeditious and efficient administration of justice.