G.R. No. 152889 , April 7, 2009
ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and HON. BASILIO R. GABO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Enrique Viudez II was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. After the filing of the Informations and the issuance of warrants for his arrest, Viudez filed a motion to suspend the proceedings and the implementation of the warrant. He argued that a petition for review of the prosecutor’s resolution finding probable cause was pending before the Secretary of Justice. He invoked Section 9 of Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 70, which states that pending resolution of such an appeal, “the proceedings in court are held in abeyance.”
The RTC denied the motion, reasoning that the warrant had already been issued and there was no compelling reason to recall it. The court also held that since Viudez had not been arrested or had not surrendered, the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over his person; consequently, he had no personality to file any pleading. The Court of Appeals dismissed Viudez’s subsequent petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to suspend the implementation of the warrant of arrest pending resolution of the petition for review before the Secretary of Justice.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The authority of the Secretary of Justice to review a prosecutor’s resolution, even after an information is filed, is conceded. However, once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, such as its dismissal or the holding of proceedings in abeyance, rests solely within the sound discretion of the court.
The Court clarified that DOJ Circular No. 70 is a mere internal rule governing the conduct of preliminary investigations and appeals within the DOJ. It cannot bind courts or diminish their control over criminal cases once jurisdiction is acquired. The circular’s directive to hold court proceedings in abeyance is merely a request or advice to the trial prosecutor, not a mandatory order for the court. The trial court retains its inherent power to determine whether to suspend proceedings, and its refusal to do so is not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial function. The pendency of a DOJ petition for review does not automatically justify its recall or suspension, as the court must independently assess the necessity of the warrant to ensure the accused’s appearance and the state’s protection.