GR 146707; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146707 November 29, 2006
ERNESTO DUMLAO, JR., ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. RODOLFO PONFERRADA, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners’ relatives were murdered after local elections in 1995. Witnesses Ernesto Mendoza and Mario Gascon executed affidavits identifying private respondents Roy Flores, Godofredo Flores, and Quirino Cabeza as among the armed assailants. They further alleged that from a hiding spot 41 meters away, they saw and overheard respondents Atty. Franklin Tamargo and Atty. Manuel Molina order Roy Flores to kill all the jeepney passengers, which was subsequently carried out. After a preliminary investigation found probable cause, Informations for multiple murder were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Private respondents filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ Secretary reversed the prosecutor’s finding, directing the withdrawal of the Informations. The cases were transferred to the RTC of Manila, Branch 41, presided by Judge Rodolfo Ponferrada. The public prosecutor, following the DOJ directive, filed a motion to withdraw the Informations. Judge Ponferrada granted the motion and dismissed the cases, finding the witnesses’ sworn statements “incredible and tainted with bias and prejudice.”
ISSUE
Whether public respondent Judge Ponferrada committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to withdraw the Informations based on the DOJ Secretary’s reversal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that the rule in Crespo v. Mogul—that court approval is needed for case disposition once an information is filed—does not strip the Secretary of Justice of the authority to review a prosecutor’s resolution, even after the filing in court, provided the accused has not been arraigned. This power of review is explicitly recognized under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Court held that while the trial court is not bound to automatically adopt the Secretary’s position, it must evaluate the merits of the motion to withdraw. In this case, Judge Ponferrada did not merely rubber-stamp the DOJ order. His dismissal order contained an independent assessment of the evidence, specifically finding the eyewitness accounts incredible. Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this judicial discretion was exercised in a whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious manner, no grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari existed. The petition was therefore denied.