Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City
TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION
ALEXANDER BRYAN REGANIT, CA-G.R. SP NO. 08155-MIN
Petitioner,
Members:
CAMELLO, J., Ch.,
ATAL-PAÑO &
- versus - ONG, JJ.
HON. JILL ROSE S. JAUGAN-LO, Promulgated:
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY,
AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AUGUST 16, 2018
Respondents.
R ESOLUTION
ATAL-PAÑO, J.:
This treats the Motions for Reconsideration filed by private
complainant Elsie Lucille R. Perret1 (Perret) and the Office of the
Solicitor General2 (OSG) respectively, of our Decision3 dated
June 6, 2018 which granted the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner
Alexander Bryan Reganit (Reganit) and reversed and set aside the
Orders dated January 24, 20174 and April 12, 20175 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 14, Davao City (RTC-Davao) denying Reganit's Motion
to Quash the Information against him in Criminal Case
No. R-DVO-16-05488-CR (5495-2014).
1
Rollo, pp.494-506.
2
Id., pp. 526-534.
3
Id., pp. 467-492.
4
Id., pp. 29-31.
5
Id., pp. 32-33.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 08155-MIN Page 2 of 6
Resolution
Both Perret and the OSG contend that this Court erred in granting
Reganit's petition for certiorari. In her motion, Perret again argues that
Reganit's motion should have been dismissed outright on the ground
that: 1.) His motions before the RTC bore only the electronic signature
of counsel instead of an original signature; 2.) His Motion for
Reconsideration dated March 3, 2017 and Motion to Hold in Abeyance
the Implementation of the Warrant of Arrest dated March 13, 2017 used
the same grounds as that raised in his Motion to Quash Information; and
3.) He omitted material and pertinent incidents in his Statement of Facts
and Case in the present Petition as provided under Sections 1 and 5,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Perret also maintains that Acting
Provincial Prosecutor Mary Christine B. Prudenciado
(APP Prudenciado) had the requisite authority to file the Information in
court by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 2014-12 dated June 24, 2014
issued by the Regional Prosecutor Al P. Calica (RP Calica).
Similarly, the OSG reiterates in its motion that APP Prudenciado
had authority to approve and file the Information against Reganit. The
OSG asserts that the designation of Prosecutor Prudenciado as Acting
Provincial Prosecutor by RP Calica does not equate to RP Calica's
delegation of his powers and functions as Regional Prosecutor.
Moreover, the OSG maintains that Reganit availed of the wrong remedy
by filing the present Petition for Certiorari to assail the RTC's denial of
his Motion to Quash Information.
In his Consolidated Comment,6 Reganit counters that the alleged
absence of original signature in his motion before the RTC have been
deemed cured and/or ratified by the RTC's issuance of the challenged
Orders dated January 24, 2017 and April 12, 2017. Moreover, Reganit
asserts that the pleadings referred to by Perret were premised on
different reliefs (i.e. quashal of the information and/or dismissal of the
case and withholding of issuance of the warrant of arrest pending
resolution on the criminal issue of jurisdiction), the filing of which, one
after the other or even simultaneously, is not prohibited by the Rules. At
any rate, a second motion for reconsideration is allowed by
jurisprudence in the paramount interest of justice.
6
Id., pp. 538-544.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 08155-MIN Page 3 of 6
Resolution
Reganit also refutes both Perret and the OSG's claim that the
present Petition is a wrong remedy by pointing that the issue relates to
the RTC's jurisdiction which may be the proper subject of a petition for
certiorari.
Lastly, Reganit contends that the arguments raised by both Perret
and the OSG concerning APP Prudenciado's authority are a mere rehash
of their arguments which were already adequately addressed in the
challenged Decision of the Court.
On July 16, 2018, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
filed an Urgent Motion for Clarification of our Decision dated
June 6, 2018. In its motion, the NBI manifested that notwithstanding our
Decision which granted the quashal of the Information against Reganit,
private complainant Perret still requested the NBI to serve the warrant of
arrest dated November 27, 2014 issued against Reganit on the theory
that the warrant of arrest still stands until lifted.
Our Ruling
We resolve to deny the motions filed by Perret and the OSG.
It appears that both motions do not raise new or substantial
arguments which would convince us to reconsider our Decision.
It bears stressing that while the general rule is that certiorari will
not lie to assail an interlocutory order such as the denial of a motion to
quash, jurisprudence7 has time and again held that, under certain
situations, a direct resort to a petition for certiorari is available to assail
the denial of a motion to quash information especially where the issue
raised goes into the very authority of the RTC over the case, such as in
this case. Indeed, it would be a gross infringement of petitioner's right to
due process, not to mention an utter waste of time and judicial resources,
if trial is allowed to proceed only to be nullified by the higher courts
7
See Maximo v. Villapando, G.R. Nos. 214925 & 214965, April 26, 2017; Cuyco v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 137017-18, February 8, 2000; Organo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 133535, September 9, 1999;
Lontok, Jr. v. Gorgonio, G.R. No. L-37396, April 30, 1979; Flordelis v. Himalolaon, G.R. No. L-48088,
July 31, 1978.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 08155-MIN Page 4 of 6
Resolution
later on upon the ground that the charges were filed by a person who had
no authority to file the same.8
Moreover, even assuming that Reganit's motion before the RTC
violated the Rules of Procedure as insisted by Perret, it is within the
power of this court to temper rigid rules in favor of substantial justice.
While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even
meticulously observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural
lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. If
the rules are intended to ensure the orderly conduct of litigation, it is
because of the higher objective they seek which is the protection of
substantive rights of the parties.9
The other grounds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues 10
already passed upon by the Court or too unsubstantial to require
consideration, there is no need to “cut and paste” pertinent portions of
our Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of
the instant motions. As succinctly put by the Supreme Court on the
effect and disposition of a motion for reconsideration:
The filing of a motion for reconsideration,
authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not
impose on the Court the obligation to deal
individually and specifically with the grounds relied
upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court
does in its judgment or final order as regards the
issues raised and submitted for decision. This would
be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving
merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in
the judgment or final order for rejecting the
arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be
a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for
the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed
waived because not asserted at the first opportunity.
It suffices for the Court to deal generally and
summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and
merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14,
Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains
8
Romauldez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143618-41, July 30, 2002.
9
Lao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 47013, 60647& 60958-59, February 17, 2000.
10
Id., pp. 13-14.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 08155-MIN Page 5 of 6
Resolution
merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already
submitted to and pronounced without merit by the
Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have
already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no
substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant
reconsideration or modification of the judgment or
final order; or the arguments in the motion are too
unsubstantial to require consideration, etc.11
As regards the NBI's Motion for Clarification, since the
Information from whence the Warrant of Arrest was issued has been
quashed, the said warrant dated November 27, 2014 is recalled and set
aside.
WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration filed
respectively by private complainant Elsie Lucille R. Perret and the
Office of the Solicitor General are DENIED.
The National Bureau of Investigation is hereby ORDERED to
refrain from implementing the warrant of arrest dated
November 27, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
PERPETUA T. ATAL-PAÑO
Associate Justice
11
Social Justice Society Officers v. Lim, G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10, 2015.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 08155-MIN Page 6 of 6
Resolution
WE CONCUR:
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDGARDO A. CAMELLO WALTER S. ONG
Associate Justice Associate Justice
