G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016
SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MARIO JOEL T. REYES, Respondent.

FACTS

This case arose from the murder of broadcaster Dr. Gerardo Ortega. Following an investigation, a first panel of DOJ prosecutors dismissed the complaint against respondent Mario Joel T. Reyes, the alleged mastermind. The complainant, Dr. Ortega’s wife, filed a motion to reopen the investigation to admit new evidence, which the first panel denied. Subsequently, then Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued Department Order No. 710, creating a second panel to conduct a reinvestigation “in the interest of service and due process,” revoking the earlier order that created the first panel. The second panel found probable cause against Reyes, leading to the filing of an information and the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the trial court.
Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the creation of the second panel. The CA granted the petition, declaring Department Order No. 710 null and void. It ruled that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion by constituting a new panel instead of resolving the complainant’s appeal through a petition for review under the 2000 NPS Rules on Appeal. The CA reinstated the first panel’s resolutions dismissing the complaint. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying Department Order No. 710 and in ruling that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in creating a second panel to conduct a reinvestigation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Secretary of Justice, as the head of the principal prosecution agency of the government, possesses the inherent authority and discretion to act on any matter that may cause a probable miscarriage of justice in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. This power is not strictly limited by the procedural rules on appeal. The Secretary may, upon motion or motu proprio, order a reinvestigation to address newly offered evidence or to ensure due process, as was done in this case through Department Order No. 710. The creation of a new panel was a valid exercise of this supervisory power to rectify a potential oversight by the first panel in not admitting material evidence.
Furthermore, the petition for certiorari before the CA was rendered moot by supervening events. The trial court had already determined the existence of probable cause independently, based on the second panel’s resolution, and had issued a warrant of arrest. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case and makes its own determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, any question regarding the regularity of the preliminary investigation is deemed moot. The court’s own finding supplants that of the prosecutor. Thus, the CA should have dismissed the petition for certiorari on this ground.