GR 189596; (April, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189596 . April 23, 2014.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Petitioner, vs. TEODULO NANO ALAON, Respondent.
FACTS
Private complainant AAA filed a complaint charging respondent Teodulo Nano Alaon with three counts of rape. The Provincial Prosecutor initially found probable cause for rape but, upon Alaon’s Motion for Reconsideration, downgraded the charge to Acts of Lasciviousness, citing the accused’s advanced age (73) and comparing the act to precedents defining acts of lasciviousness. An Information for Acts of Lasciviousness was filed in the RTC. The Secretary of Justice, upon a letter from the victim’s mother (BBB) narrating the incidents and mentioning AAA’s intellectual disability, directed an automatic review of the case and ordered the deferral or suspension of the court proceedings. The Provincial Prosecutor mistakenly assumed a petition for review was filed and requested the RTC to withdraw the Information. The RTC initially suspended proceedings but later, after the prosecutor clarified no formal petition was filed, granted Alaon’s motion to lift the suspension, found judicial probable cause for Acts of Lasciviousness, and proceeded with arraignment and trial. The DOJ, through Undersecretary Pineda, subsequently issued a Resolution setting aside the downgrade and directing the filing of an Information for three counts of rape. Alaon challenged this DOJ Resolution via certiorari in the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Department of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolution directing the filing of rape charges against Alaon based on a letter-request from the victim’s mother, despite the absence of a formal petition for review and without giving Alaon an opportunity to be heard.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the DOJ’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ annulment of the DOJ Resolution. The Court held that while the Secretary of Justice has the power of supervision and control to review prosecutors’ resolutions motu proprio, this power must be exercised within the bounds of the law and procedural due process. The Secretary’s directive for an “automatic review” based solely on a letter from the complainant’s mother, which did not comply with the formal requirements for an appeal under the National Prosecution Service Rules, deprived the accused of his right to be heard. Due process requires that the accused be notified and given an opportunity to oppose a petition for review before the DOJ. The DOJ’s act of treating the letter as an appeal and issuing the assailed Resolution without providing Alaon this opportunity constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court further noted that the trial in the RTC for Acts of Lasciviousness had already commenced, and there was no reason to order its suspension.