107. PEOPLE VS. HONRALES all other courts.

The requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of competent

jurisdiction is therefore absent. A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a
G.R. No. 182651. August 25, 2010.* decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory.
HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES, petitioners, vs. JONATHAN HONRALES, PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
respondent. Appeals.
G.R. No. 182657. August 25, 2010.*    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES,   Jose M. Mendiola  for Heirs of Jane Honrales.
petitioners, vs. JONATHAN HONRALES, respondent.   Pamaran, Ramos & Partners Law Offices
Criminal Procedure; The trial court acts with grave abuse of discretion where it VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
grants the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalls the warrant of arrest Before this Court are petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the October 1, 2007 Decision 1 and
evidence on record—when it relies solely on the manifestation of the public April 3, 2008
prosecutor that it is abiding by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the trial _______________
court abdicates its judicial power and refuses to perform a positive duty enjoined by 1 Rollo (G.R. No. 182651), pp. 27-34. Penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-
law.—It is beyond cavil that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting Bernabe with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin
the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest (now a member of this Court) concurring.
without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the 425
evidence on record. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor VOL. 629, AUGUST 25, 2010 425
that it is abiding by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the trial court abdicated Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. What Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92755.
remains for our resolution is whether the case may be remanded to the RTC without The antecedents are as follows:
violating respondent’s right against double jeopardy. On this question, we find the On August 19, 2002, Jane Honrales was fatally shot by her husband, respondent
answer to be in the affirmative. Jonathan Honrales. Thus, in a Resolution3 dated October 28, 2002, Bernardino R.
Double Jeopardy; Requisites.—Double jeopardy exists when the following Camba, Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila, recommended the filing of an information
requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first for parricide against respondent. On November 18, 2002, the following
jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same Information4 was filed against respondent with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; Manila:
(b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been “That on or about August 19, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case accused, with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. attack, assault and use personal violence upon one JANE HONRALES y ILAGAN, his
_______________ legal wife, by then and there shooting her with a 45 cal. pistol, thereby inflicting upon
* THIRD DIVISION. the latter a gunshot wound of the head and neck which was the direct and immediate
424 cause of her death thereafter.
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Contrary to law.”
Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales On November 21, 2002, Judge Teresa P. Soriaso of the RTC of Manila, Branch
Same; Judgments; Jurisdiction; Since the offense of reckless imprudence 27, ordered respondent’s arrest.5
resulting in parricide was included in the charge for intentional parricide pending On November 22, 2002, respondent moved to reconsider6 the October 28, 2002
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) clearly Resolution of Assistant City Prosecutor Camba which recommended the filing of
had no jurisdiction over the subsequent criminal case for reckless imprudence parricide charges. Respondent later also filed a supplement to his motion.
resulting in parricide filed before it, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the In view of respondent’s motion for reconsideration, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
offense to the exclusion of all other courts; A decision rendered without jurisdiction is Alfredo E. Ednave moved that the RTC defer proceedings.7 Respondent in turn filed
not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory.—The MeTC an Urgent
took cognizance of the Information for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide while _______________
the criminal case for parricide was still pending before the RTC. In Dioquino v. Cruz, 2 Id., at p. 35.
Jr., 116 SCRA 451 (1982),  we held that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in 3 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 3-5.
which the Information is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless 4 Id., at pp. 1-2. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-207976.
imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for intentional parricide 5 Id., at p. 58.
pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal case 6 Id., at pp. 68-74.
filed before it, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of 7 Id., at p. 65.

Page 1 of 5
426 Luna. Thus, the hearing proceeded. After the hearing, petitioner heirs moved for the
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED cancellation of the December 10, 2003 hearing and filed a formal motion to that
Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales effect.
Ex-Parte Motion to Recall Warrant of Arrest,8 which the public prosecutor opposed.9 On December 15, 2003, respondent filed a Motion and Manifestation praying that
On December 12, 2002, the RTC issued an Order10 deferring proceedings in view the case be submitted for resolution or, in the alternative, that it be set for final
of the pendency of respondent’s motion for reconsideration. It, however, denied the clarificatory hearing on December 22, 2003.
motion to recall the arrest warrant since deferment of proceedings does not impair the The following day or on December 16, 2003, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay
validity of the information or otherwise render the same defective. Neither does it issued an Order denying the prayers for suspension and submission of the case for
affect the jurisdiction of the court over the offense as would constitute a ground for resolution and instead set the hearing on December 22, 2003.
quashing the information. The trial court further held that considering the evidence _______________
submitted, it finds probable cause for the issuance of the arrest warrant. 15 Id., at p. 147.
On May 21, 2003, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Laura D. Biglang-Awa filed a 16 Id., at p. 190.
Motion for Leave to Conduct Reinvestigation11 with the RTC in light of the affidavit of 428
one (1) Michelle C. Luna, which respondent, in his motion/supplemental motion for 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
reconsideration, argues “will belie the statement of witness for the complainant, John Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
James Honrales that the shooting of the victim . . . was intentional.” On December 19, 2003, however, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay issued a
On May 30, 2003, the RTC issued an Order12 granting leave to conduct the Resolution17 setting aside the October 28, 2002 Resolution and recommending the
reinvestigation and authorizing 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Biglang-Awa to withdrawal of the information for parricide and the filing of an information for reckless
reinvestigate the case. imprudence resulting in parricide in its stead. City Prosecutor Garcia approved the
On September 9, 2003, the heirs of the victim (petitioner heirs) moved before the Resolution.
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila for the inhibition 13 of 2nd Assistant City On January 16, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay filed with the RTC a
Prosecutor Biglang-Awa from conducting the reinvestigation and praying that the motion to withdraw the information for parricide.18
case be remanded to the court for trial.14 On January 28, 2004, while the Motion to Withdraw Information was still pending,
_______________ an Information19 for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Parricide was filed against
8  Id., at pp. 66-67. respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The Information
9  Id., at p. 83. reads,
10 Id., at pp. 84-85. “That on or about August 19, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
11 Id., at pp. 102-103. accused, being then in possession of a 45 cal. pistol, did then and there unlawfully
12 Id., at p. 112. and feloniously, after removing the bullets of the gun in a careless, reckless, negligent
13 Id., at pp. 116-122. and imprudent manner playfully poked the gun to his maid, son and to his wife, by
14 Id., at p. 121. then and there accidentally shooting upon one JANE HONRALES, his legal wife,
427 inflicting upon the latter a gun shot wound of the head and the neck which was the
VOL. 629, AUGUST 25, 2010 427 direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.
Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales CONTRARY TO LAW.”
On September 25, 2003, City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia issued Office Order Determined to have respondent prosecuted for parricide, petitioner heirs filed a
No. 164015 reassigning the case to Assistant City Prosecutor Antonio R. Rebagay. petition for review20 with the DOJ questioning the downgrading of the offense. They
Hearings were scheduled on October 15 and 22, 2003. likewise filed an Opposition to Motion to Withdraw Information 21 with the RTC arguing
On October 15, 2003, both parties appeared but petitioner heirs manifested that that there was no final resolution yet down-
they earlier moved to reconsider Office Order No. 1640. Respondent moved that he _______________
be given up to October 22, 2003 to file an opposition. 17 Id., at pp. 224-228.
On October 22, 2003, respondent filed his opposition. Counsel for petitioner heirs 18 Id., at p. 229.
then manifested that they be given until November 5, 2003 to submit a reply thereto. 19 Id., at p. 302.
On November 17, 2003, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay issued an 20 Id., at pp. 306-320.
Order16 denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider Office Order No. 1640 and set the 21 Id., at pp. 235-241.
continuation of the hearings on December 3 and 10, 2003. 429
On December 3, 2003, both parties appeared. Petitioner heirs moved that the VOL. 629, AUGUST 25, 2010 429
hearing be suspended on the ground that they have filed a petition for review before Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to assail the Order of November 17, 2003. grading the charge against respondent that would justify withdrawal of the Information
Respondent’s counsel objected in view of the presence of their witness Michelle for parricide.

Page 2 of 5
 On February 17, 2004, petitioner heirs filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Defer On October 28, 2004, petitioner heirs filed with the MeTC a motion 35 to nullify the
Proceedings22 with the RTC to give time to the DOJ Secretary to resolve their petition proceedings held on October 11, 2004. They claimed that they were denied
for review. procedural due process since October 11, 2004 was not the agreed date for
On March 17, 2004, the DOJ, through Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño, respondent’s arraignment but October 18, 2004. They also argued that the
dismissed the petitions for review assailing (1) the Order dated November 17, 2003 of Information before the MeTC was invalid.
Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay denying the urgent motion to reconsider Office _______________
Order No. 1640 and (2) the Resolution dated December 19, 2003 finding probable 30 Id., at pp. 493-494.
cause against respondent for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide, instead of 31 Id., at pp. 504-511.
intentional parricide as charged.23 32 Id., at p. 548.
Petitioner heirs moved to reconsider24 the Resolution, and the RTC of Manila 33 Id., at p. 576.
issued an Order25 on April 14, 2004, holding in abeyance the resolution of the pending 34 Id., at pp. 573-575.
incidents in the parricide case in view of the said motion for reconsideration. 35 Id., at pp. 620-629.
On May 14, 2004, the DOJ, through Chief State Prosecutor Zuño, denied 431
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.26 Thus, Judge Soriaso of the RTC of Manila VOL. 629, AUGUST 25, 2010 431
issued an Order27 on May 28, 2004 considering the motion to withdraw the Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
Information submitted for resolution.      On December 6, 2004, the OP dismissed petitioner heirs’ appeal of the DOJ
Undaunted by the denial of their motion for reconsideration, however, petitioners Resolution.36 Petitioner heirs promptly moved to reconsider the OP’s dismissal of their
again filed a petition for review28 with the DOJ on June 14, 2004, assailing said denial. appeal, but their motion was denied by Resolution37 dated April 20, 2005.
Said petition, however, was dismissed with finality by the DOJ in a Resolution 29 dated On May 5, 2005, respondent moved for Judge Soriaso’s inhibition 38 alleging bias
July 14, 2004. in favor of the prosecution as shown by her continued inaction on his motion to
_______________ withdraw Information.
22 Id., at pp. 344-345. On June 6, 2005, petitioner heirs filed before the CA an appeal
23 Id., at pp. 369-370. by certiorari39 under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
24 Id., at pp. 371-378. assailing the denial by the OP of their motion for reconsideration.
25 Id., at pp. 426-427. On June 30, 2005, Judge Soriaso inhibited herself from the case. 40 The case was
26 Id., at p. 435. eventually re-raffled off to Branch 54 presided over by Judge Manuel M. Barrios.
27 Id., at p. 443. Shortly thereafter, Judge Barrios issued an Order41 on September 26, 2005
28 Id., at pp. 446-452. granting the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of
29 Id., at pp. 495-496. arrest issued against respondent. Judge Barrios ruled that the Information for
430 parricide found itself without a supporting resolution and thus its withdrawal was
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED appropriate.
Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales On October 14, 2005, petitioner heirs filed a motion for reconsideration42 of the
     Contending that the petition for review before the DOJ questioning the September 26, 2005 Order but their motion was noted without action on November 3,
downgrading of the offense was no longer an impediment to the resolution of the 2005, as it was made without the approval or intervention of the Public Prosecutor.43
pending Motion to Withdraw Information, respondent promptly filed with the RTC a _______________
Manifestation with Reiteration to Resolve the Motion to Withdraw Information.30 36 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 4-5.
On August 5, 2004, petitioner heirs appealed 31 the dismissal of their petitions to 37 Id., at pp. 36-37.
the Office of the President (OP). Thus, on August 6, 2004, Judge Soriaso reiterated 38 Id., at pp. 17-20.
her previous ruling to hold in abeyance the resolution of the motion to withdraw in 39 CA Rollo, pp. 63-79.
deference to the appeal taking its course before the OP.32 40 Records, Vol. 2, p. 63.
In the meantime, on October 11, 2004, respondent was arraigned before the 41 Id., at pp. 93-98.
MeTC and pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide. 42 Id., at pp. 104-107.
He was accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of one (1) year, seven (7) months 43 Id., at p. 108.
and eleven (11) days to two (2) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days 432
of prision correccional.33 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
On October 27, 2004, respondent filed with the RTC a motion 34 seeking to Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
dismiss the parricide charges against him. He cited his arraignment and conviction by On January 9, 2006, petitioner heirs filed a petition for certiorari44 with the
the MeTC as grounds for the dismissal of the case against him. CA assailing the September 26, 2005 and November 3, 2005 Orders issued by
the RTC through Judge Barrios. Petitioner heirs argued that Judge Barrios granted

Page 3 of 5
the motion to withdraw the Information for parricide on grounds other than his Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that if the petition is granted, it would
personal and independent findings. They likewise contended that Judge Barrios violate his right against double jeopardy. The first jeopardy has already attached
should not have granted the withdrawal of the Information and recall of the arrest because there was a valid indictment, arraignment and plea and the proceedings
warrant since he knew that their appeal with the CA disputing the downgrading of the were already terminated as he is already serving sentence and has applied for
offense was still pending. Petitioner heirs further argued that the adoption of a probation. He also contends that proceeding with reinvestigation was justified since
contrary stand by the prosecutor after the filing of the Information for parricide should the principal action can continue if there is no order from the appellate
not bar them from prosecuting the case actively sans supervision and intervention of 434
the prosecutor. 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
On August 16, 2006, petitioner heirs filed a Motion to Implead the People of the Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
Philippines as party respondent.45 On August 31, 2006, the Office of the Solicitor court to stop the proceedings. He further argues that petitioner heirs have no right to
General (OSG) filed a similar motion46 and further prayed that it be furnished a copy file this appeal especially since the appeal was filed by petitioner heirs without the
of the petition and be given time to file its comment. On October 10, 2006, the CA public prosecutor’s conformity. Respondent likewise contends that it is already too
granted the motions.47 late for petitioner heirs to question the validity of the MeTC proceedings since its
On October 1, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari. Though it found decision has become final and executory, no appeal having been taken from the
that Judge Barrios failed to make an independent assessment of the merits of the decision. Also, petitioner heirs failed to present evidence to prove that there was fraud
case and thus abdicated his judicial power and acted as a mere surrogate of the in the reinvestigation and subsequent plea to a lesser offense.
Secretary of Justice, it ruled that the remand of the case to the RTC would serve no We grant the petitions.
useful purpose since it may result in the reopening of the parricide case which would It is beyond cavil that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the
violate respondent’s constitutional right against double jeopardy. withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest without
Petitioner heirs and the OSG moved to reconsider the CA decision, but their making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on
motions were denied on April 3, 2008. Hence, they filed the present consolidated record.48 By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor that it is
petitions raising abiding by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the trial court abdicated its
_______________ judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. What remains
44 CA Rollo, pp. 2-15. for our resolution is whether the case may be remanded to the RTC without violating
45 Id., at pp. 206-208. respondent’s right against double jeopardy. On this question, we find the answer to
46 Id., at pp. 210-213. be in the affirmative.
47 Id., at pp. 216-217. Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended
433 provides:
VOL. 629, AUGUST 25, 2010 433 “SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.—When an accused
Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
the sole issue of whether the remand of the parricide case to the trial court will violate terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon
respondent’s constitutional right against double jeopardy. a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
Petitioner heirs argue that the MeTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge,
case for parricide through reckless imprudence and that jurisdiction remained with the the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dis-
RTC where the Information for parricide was filed. They also assail the filing with the _______________
MeTC of the Information for the downgraded offense after a supposedly dubious 48 See Santos v. Orda, Jr., G.R. No. 158236, September 1, 2004, 437 SCRA
reinvestigation and question the hasty arraignment of accused which was done 504, 515; Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113216, September 5, 1997, 278
allegedly without notice to petitioner heirs and without them being furnished with the SCRA 656, 682.
result of the reinvestigation. They even claim that they were not furnished with a copy 435
of the motion for leave to conduct reinvestigation as it was sent to the wrong address. VOL. 629, AUGUST 25, 2010 435
Petitioner heirs further argue that when respondent immediately pleaded guilty to the Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
charge for reckless imprudence without notice to them, such a plea cannot be legally missal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for
invoked in respondent’s defense of double jeopardy. Also, the Information for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which
parricide was still pending with the RTC when accused was hastily arraigned for the necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former
downgraded offense. Thus, not all requisites of double jeopardy are present. complaint or information.
The OSG, for its part, argues that the MeTC could not have validly acquired x x x x”
jurisdiction over the case for the same offense of parricide or any offense necessarily Thus, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first
included therein because the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the Information for jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly
parricide before the RTC remained unacted upon by the said court. terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first

Page 4 of 5
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused
has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.49
In this case, the MeTC took cognizance of the Information for reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide was still pending
before the RTC. In Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr.,50  we held that once jurisdiction is acquired
by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for
intentional parricide51 pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no jurisdiction
over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the
offense to the exclusion of all other courts. The requisite that the judg-
_______________
49 People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 168982, August 5, 2009, 595 SCRA 438,
449; People v. Tampal, G.R. No. 102485, May 22, 1995, 244 SCRA 202, 208.
50 Nos. L-38579 & L-39951, September 9, 1982, 116 SCRA 451, 456.
51 See Magno v. People, G.R. No. 149725, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 246,
258, citing People v. De Fernando, 49 Phil. 75 (1926); People v. Carmen, G.R. No.
137268, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 267; Samson v. Court of Appeals, et al., 103
Phil. 277 (1958).
436
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Honrales
ment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is therefore absent.
A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law
and can never become executory.52
WHEREFORE, the present petitions are GRANTED. The Decision dated October
1, 2007 and Resolution dated April 3, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 92755 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the September
26, 2005 and November 3, 2005 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
54 are hereby NULLIFIED and said trial court is hereby DIRECTED to REINSTATE
Criminal Case No. 02-207976 for parricide for appropriate criminal proceedings.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Brion, Perez**  and  Sereno, JJ., concur.
Petitions granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.—Penalizing a court employee anew for the same act for which she had
been earlier penalized would be tantamount to placing her twice in jeopardy for the
same acts of immorality. (Reyes-Tayag vs. Tayag, 574 SCRA 386 [2008])
The principle of double jeopardy finds no application in administrative cases.
(Cayao-Lasam vs. Ramolete, 574 SCRA 439 [2008])
——o0o—— 
_______________
52 Municipality of Antipolo v. Zapanta, No. L-65334, December 26, 1984, 133
SCRA 820, 825.
**  Designated additional member per Raffle of March 8, 2010 in view of the
recusal of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin from the case due to prior action in
the Court of Appeals.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 5 of 5