G.R. No. 168617 February 19, 2007
BERNADETTE L. ADASA, petitioner, vs. CECILLE S. ABALOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Cecille S. Abalos filed complaints for Estafa against petitioner Bernadette L. Adasa before the Iligan City Prosecutor, alleging Adasa deceitfully encashed two checks issued in Abalos’s name. The City Prosecutor found probable cause, leading to the filing of two criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 8782, Adasa pleaded not guilty at her arraignment on October 1, 2001. She subsequently filed a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 15, 2001, challenging the prosecutor’s finding. The DOJ reversed the prosecutor and directed the withdrawal of the information. The trial court then granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the case.

ISSUE

Whether the DOJ gravely abused its discretion in entertaining and granting Adasa’s Petition for Review despite her having been arraigned prior to its filing.

RULING

Yes, the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision nullifying the DOJ resolutions. The ruling hinged on the mandatory language of Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70, which states that a petition for review “shall not be given due course if the accused had already been arraigned.” The Court emphasized that the word “shall” denotes a mandatory and prohibitive injunction, leaving no discretion to the Secretary of Justice once arraignment has occurred. By entertaining the petition after Adasa’s arraignment, the DOJ acted contrary to this explicit rule. Furthermore, by entering an unconditional plea of not guilty, Adasa was deemed to have waived her right to a reinvestigation and to question any irregularities in it. The trial court’s subsequent dismissal order, being based solely on the void DOJ resolutions, was also deemed invalid. The Court declined to review the factual issue of probable cause, as such review is not within the scope of a Rule 45 petition.