G.R. No. 179287 & G.R. No. 182090, February 1, 2016. PCI Jimmy M. Fortaleza and SPO2 Freddie A. Natividad, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez, in his capacity as the Secretary of Justice and Elizabeth N. Orola Vda. De Salabas, Respondents. / Elizabeth N. Orola Vda. De Salabas, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Eduardo R. Ermita, Hon. Manuel B. Gaite, P/Insp. Clarence Dongail, P/Insp. Jonathan Lorilla, PO3 Allen Winston Hulleza and PO2 Bernardo Cimatu, Respondents.
FACTS

The consolidated petitions originated from the kidnapping and murder of Eleuterio Salabas and others in 2003. After a series of complaints and reinvestigations, the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecutor initially found probable cause only against P/Insp. Clarence Dongail and Ramonita Estanislao, dismissing the case against other respondents including police officers Fortaleza and Natividad. On review, Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez issued a Resolution on October 2, 2006, ordering the filing of an amended Information for Kidnapping with Murder against fifteen individuals, including Fortaleza and Natividad. Fortaleza and Natividad filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed, prompting their Petition for Review to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 179287 ). Separately, Dongail and others appealed to the Office of the President, which set aside the Secretary of Justice’s Resolution. The complainant, Elizabeth Orola-Salabas, assailed this reversal via a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 182090).

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the filing of an amended Information against the respondents without affording them notice and an opportunity to be heard during the review of the prosecutor’s resolution.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition in G.R. No. 179287 and partially granted the petition in G.R. No. 182090. The Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion. While the Secretary has the authority to review the findings of prosecutors, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of due process. The Court emphasized that respondents in a preliminary investigation have a statutory right to be notified and to submit counter-affidavits and evidence. The review by the Secretary of Justice is a continuation of the preliminary investigation; thus, the same procedural rights apply. The records showed that respondents Fortaleza and Natividad were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the Secretary reversed the prosecutor’s dismissal and ordered their inclusion in the amended Information. Consequently, the October 2, 2006 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice was annulled with respect to them. For respondents Dongail, Lorilla, Hulleza, and Cimatu, whose case was remanded by the Office of the President, the Court ordered a remand to the Secretary of Justice for further proceedings, with the directive that any new resolution must comply with due process and be subject to the trial court’s approval.