APPEAL BEFORE DOJ IS SUFFICIENT TO DEFER COURT PROCEEDINGS
Serag v. Court of appeals
G.R. NO. 163818 October 20, 2005
Callejo, Sr., J.
DOCTRINE: The trial court in a criminal case which takes cognizance of an accused's
motion for review of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor or for reinvestigation and
defers the arraignment until resolution of the said motion must act on the resolution
reversing the investigating prosecutor's finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon
only upon proof that such resolution is already final in that no appeal was taken therefrom
to the Department of Justice.
FACTS: A mayoralty candidate in San Joacquin, Iloilo was shot to death in front of his
residence. His driver was also wounded as a result. Following this, a complaint was filed
against the accused (the incumbent mayor & Serag) for murder and attempted murder
with the use of unlicensed firearms. Subsequently, an Information was filed by the
Provincial Prosecutor charging the same offenses before the RTC.
RESOLUTION OF THE RTC: The trial court found probable cause that the crimes
charged has been committed and ordered for the issuance of warrants of arrest.
PETITION FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE DOJ: Aggrieved, the accused filed a petition for
review before the DOJ.
ARRAIGNMENT: Following the Resolution of the RTC, an arraignment was set on MAY 21,
2002. Accused were arraigned for the crimes of Murder And Attempted Murder.
RESOLUTION OF DOJ: The Resolution of the DOJ downgraded the crimes charged
against the accused to HOMICIDE and ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. The Resolution was issued A
DAY BEFORE THE ARRAIGNMENT (MAY 20, 2002).
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: Aggrieved by DOJ’s Resolution, the private
respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
FILING OF SECOND AMENDED INFORMATION: In compliance with DOJ’s Resolution,
the Private Prosecutor filed a second amended information against the accused for the
crimes of HOMICIDE AND ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE before the RTC. (For lack of jurisdiction,
the RTC ordered the re-filing of the Information for Attempted Homicide to the MTC. Hence,
the only remaining case to be heard before the RTC is HOMICIDE.)
MOTION TO DEFER ADMISSION OF SECOND AMENDED INFORMATION: The private
prosecutors (counsel of the private complainants) moved to defer the filing of the second
amended information in view of the pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by the private
complainants before the DOJ.
MOTION TO ADMIT SECOND AMENDED INFO: Upon motion of the Provincial Prosecutor,
the RTC verbally granted the same.
ARRAIGNMENT: The RTC proceeded to arraignment arguing that a motion for
reconsideration of DOJ’s Resolution is not a valid reason for the deferment of the
arraignment.
DOJ RESOLUTION ON the MR: DOJ reversed its earlier Resolution and recommended for
the filing of Information for the crimes of MURDER And ATTEMPTED MURDER. Thus, he
directed the Provincial Prosecutor to withdraw the Information for Homicide and Attempted
Homicide.
MR ON DOJ’s RESOLUTION: Aggrieved by DOJ’s subsequent Resolution, the accused filed
a MR but was denied. Their Appeal to CA also had the same fate. Hence, the present
Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC may proceed with hearing a case despite a pending appeal before
the DOJ.
RULING: NO. The pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is enough reason for the
deferment of any proceedings in the trial court and petitioner, through the private
prosecutors, correctly moved for the deferment of the admission of the second amended
informations for homicide and attempted homicide.
