Criminal Procedure; Rules on Arraignment PETER PAUL DIMATULAC, et. al. v. HON. SESINANDO VILLON, et. al. G.R.

No. 127107 October 12, 1998 Facts: A complaint for Murder was filed by the heirs of SPO3 Virgilio Dimatulac against Mayor Santiago Yabut, et. al. before the MTCC of Macabebe, Pampanga. Warrants o f arrests were issued by the judge of said court for the arrest of the accused. The writ also directed the latter to file their counter-affidavits, but among th e 17 who were impleaded, only four, namely, Evelino David, Justino Mandap, Juan Magat and Francisco Yambao, of the 17 accused were arrested, while only Francisc o Yambao submitted his counter affidavit. Finding probable cause, the same judge directed the Clerk of Court to forward the entire records of the case to the Of fice of the Provincial Prosecutor for further action. Thereafter, despite the fact that the accused were still at large, Pampanga Assi stant Provincial Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores conducted a reinvestigation, i n which she found that the Yabuts and one of the accused, John Doe Danny, to th e exclusion of the other accused, were in conspiracy with one another, but that the offense committed was only homicide, not murder. Petitioners appealed the re solution of Alfonso-Flores to the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Information for Homicide was filed before RTC in Macabebe, Pampanga, against the Yabuts and Danny". The Information, although dated 29 January 1996 was signed by P rovincial Prosecutor Manarang on February 27, 1996, that is, a day before its fi ling in court. Private prosecutor, Atty. Amado Valdez filed with the trial court Motion to Issu e Hold Departure Order against All Accused and an Urgent Motion to Defer Proceed ings. The second motion was grounded on the pendency of the appeal before the Se cretary of Justice. The Yabuts filed their opposition to the Motion to Issue Hol d Departure Order and the Motion to Defer Proceedings, contending, among others, that it would violate the accused right to speedy trial. Petitioners filed a Re ply to this opposition. According to the petitioners accused's right to a speedy trial would not be impaired because the appeal to the Secretary of Justice was filed pursuant to Department Order No. 223 of the DOJ and there was clear and co nvincing proof that the killing was committed with treachery and other qualifyin g circumstances not absorbed in treachery. Judge Roura deferred resolution of the Motion to Issue a Hold Departure Order un til "such time that all the accused who are out on bail are arraigned," but deni ed the Motion to Defer Proceedings as he found no compelling reason therefor. DOJ Secretary Teofisto Guingona resolved the appeal in favor of petitioners. Acc ording to Secretary Guingona treachery was present, and so he directed the Provi ncial Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga "to amend the information filed again st the accused from homicide to murder," and to include Fortunato Mallari as acc used in the amended information. The Yabuts moved to reconsider the resolution. In a Manifestation and Motion petitioners asked the trial court to grant their m otion to set aside arraignment attaching thereto a copy of the Manifestation and Motion of the Solicitor General filed with the Court of Appeals wherein the Sol icitor General joined cause with petitioners and prayed that "in the better inte rest of justice, the Petition for Prohibition be granted and a writ of prohibiti on be issued forthwith." The Yabut opposed petitioner's Manifestation and Motion because they had already been arraigned and, therefore, would be placed in doub le jeopardy, and that the public prosecutor not the private prosecutor had control o f the prosecution of the case. In his letter addressed to the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, the Secretary of Justice set aside his order to amend the information from homicide to murder considering that the appeal was rendered moot and academic by the arraignment of the accused for homicide and their having entered their pleas of not guilty. Ho wever, the Secretary reiterated that Fortunato Mallari should be included in the information for homicide. Public Prosecutor Jaime Bustos filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Information and

to Admit Amended Information. The Amended Information merely impleaded Fortunat o Mallari as one of the accused. In his Order of 1 August 1996, Judge Villon denied petitioners' motion to set as ide arraignment. Petitioners forthwith moved for reconsideration of the order, a rguing that the Motion to Defer the Proceedings filed by petitioners was meritor ious and did not violate the accused's right to speedy trial and that the DOJ ha d ruled that the proper offense to be charged was murder and did not reverse suc h finding. The Yabuts opposed the motion on the ground that it raised no argumen t which had not yet been resolved. Petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment of accused Fortunato Mallari, wh ich the trial court granted in view of petitioners' motion for reconsideration o f the court's order denying petitioners' motion to set aside private respondents ' arraignment. As expected, Mallari moved to reconsider the trial court's order and clamored for consistency in the trial court's rulings. In an order, Judge Villon denied reconsideration of the order denying petitioner s' motion to set aside arraignment. According to Judge Villon, Yabuts right to a speedy trial should be respected. Further, he explained that the prosecution of an offense should be under the control of the public prosecutor. Petitioners, h e observed, did not obtain the conformity of the prosecutor before they filed va rious motions to defer proceedings. Petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari/Prohibition and Mandamus u rging the Supreme Court to reverse the order of respondent Judge denying their M otion to Set Aside Arraignment and order respondents Secretary of Justice and th e prosecutors concerned to amend the information from homicide to murder. Issues: 1. Whether or not the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor committed grave a buse of discretion in giving due course to the Motion for Reinvestigation by Pri vate Respondents against whom Warrants of Arrest were issued but who had not yet brought into the custody of the law. 2. Whether or not the Judge Villon acted in excess of jurisdiction in proce motion to set aside arraignm eding with the arraignment and in denying petitioners ent and reconsideration thereof despite his knowledge of the pendency of the app eal and the submission of vital evidence to prove that murder and not homicide w as committed by the accused. Held: 1. Yes. Warrants for the arrest of the Yabuts were issued by the MCTC, with no bail reco mmended for their temporary liberty. However the Yabuts were not arrested; neith er did they surrender. Hence, they were never brought into the custody of the la w. Yet, Asst. Provincial Fiscal Alfonso Reyes, either motu proprio or upon motio n of the Yabuts, conducted a reinvestigation. Since said accused were at large, Alfonso-Reyes should not have done so. Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to submi t their counter-affidavits without first demanding that they surrender because o f the standing warrants of arrest against them. In short, Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to make a mockery of the law in order that they gain their provisiona l liberty pending trial and be charged with the lesser offense of homicide. 2. Yes. The Supreme Court held that Judge Roura acted with grave abuse of discretion whe n, in his order of 26 March l996, he deferred resolution on the motion for a hol d departure order until "such time that all the accused who are out on bail are arraigned" and denied the motion to defer proceedings for the reason that the "p rivate prosecution has not shown any indication that the appeal was given due co urse by the Secretary of Justice." To hold that arraignment is a prerequisite to the issuance of a hold departure order, said the Court, could obviously defeat the purpose of said order.