G.R. No. 177600 and G.R. No. 178684, October 19, 2015
MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG, LT. COL. JALANDONI COTA, MAYOR AMER ODEN BALINDONG, and ALI BALINDONG, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, STATE PROSECUTOR LEAH ARMAMENTO, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL and ZENAIDA LIMBONA, Respondents.

ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE ALEXANDER S. BALUT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 76, Respondent.

FACTS

The consolidated cases originated from a shooting incident on May 11, 1998 in Malabang, Lanao del Sur, resulting in deaths and injuries. After preliminary investigation, the prosecutor charged petitioners with Double Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder. Following a reinvestigation, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor downgraded the charges and dropped some accused. Private complainant Zenaida Limbona filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ). On August 4, 1999, then DOJ Secretary Serafin Cuevas directed the filing of two informations for murder with attempted murder, two for frustrated murder, and one for attempted murder against all petitioners. Petitioners filed multiple motions for reconsideration. On March 12, 2001, a new DOJ Secretary, Hernando Perez, granted a third motion for reconsideration. Limbona challenged this via certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), which on May 22, 2003 set aside Secretary Perez’s resolutions and reinstated the earlier DOJ directives. The Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 159962 (December 16, 2004 Decision), affirmed the CA and ordered the implementation of warrants of arrest. Petitioners filed successive motions, including an “Urgent Motion for Clarification,” which the Supreme Court expunged, admonishing petitioners and their counsel. The warrants were issued. The cases were re-raffled among several RTC branches in Quezon City. Before Judge Ralph S. Lee (Branch 83), petitioners filed a “Motion to Re-Determine the Existence or Non-Existence of Probable Cause,” which Judge Lee granted in an Order dated May 12, 2006, ordering the downgrading of the charges. The cases were then transferred to Judge Vivencio S. Baclig (Branch 77), who denied a motion for reconsideration of Judge Lee’s order in an Order dated October 18, 2006. The State, through the OSG, filed a special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 97121) challenging these orders. The CA granted the petition, annulling the assailed orders. Petitioners (Balindong, et al.) appealed to the Supreme Court via G.R. No. 177600. Meanwhile, the criminal cases were re-raffled to Judge Alexander S. Balut (Branch 76), who issued an Order dated July 16, 2007 suspending proceedings out of “judicial courtesy” pending the Supreme Court’s resolution. Zenaida Limbona filed a petition to cite Judge Balut for contempt (G.R. No. 178684).

ISSUE

The core issue is whether a trial judge, after the information is filed and a warrant of arrest is issued, can still re-determine or downgrade the offense charged based on a re-evaluation of probable cause, or whether such action constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 177600 and granted the petition in G.R. No. 178684. The Court held that the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the trial court upon the filing of the information and supporting papers implies a judicial determination of probable cause for the offense charged. It is therefore superfluous for the accused to seek a judicial re-determination of probable cause on the pretext that the trial court should act independently of the executive determination. The Court found that Judges Lee and Baclig committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for re-determination and downgrading the charges, as their orders effectively nullified the final and executory rulings of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 159962, which had sustained the filing of specific charges and ordered the arrest of petitioners. The Court emphasized that a judge’s duty to independently determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest does not extend to reviewing or altering the Executive’s determination of the proper offense to be charged, especially after a final judicial affirmation of that determination. The Court also found Judge Balut guilty of indirect contempt for issuing the July 16, 2007 Order suspending proceedings, as it disregarded the Supreme Court’s final and executory judgment and constituted an unjustified delay in the administration of justice. The Court imposed a fine on Judge Balut and reiterated that the trial court must proceed with the criminal cases with dispatch.