Paul G. Roberts, Et Al. v. CA

Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
113930, March 5, 1996
Facts
On 15 April 1993, petitioners Roberts, et al. filed a petition for review to the Department of Justice seeking the reversal of
the finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor. They also moved for the suspension of the proceedings and
the holding in abeyance of the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. Meanwhile, the public prosecutor also moved
to defer the arraignment of the accused-appellants pending the final disposition of the appeal to the Department of
Justice.
On 17 May 1993, respondent Judge Asuncion issued the challenged order (1) denying, on the basis of Crespovs. Mogul, the
foregoing motions respectively filed by the petitioners and the public prosecutor, and directing the issuance of the
warrants of arrest "after June 1993" and setting the arraignment on 28 June 1993. In part, respondent judge stated in his
order that since the case is already pending in this Court for trial, following whatever opinion the Secretary of Justice may
have on the matter would undermine the independence and integrity his court. To justify his order, he quoted the ruling of
the Supreme Court in Crespo, which stated:
In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the
fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a
petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed in
Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court.
Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the respondent judge had not the slightest basis at all for
determining probable cause when he ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest.
Issue
Did Judge Asuncion commit grave abuse of discretion in denying, on the basis of Crespo vs. Mogul, the motions to suspend
proceedings and hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment until after the petition for
review filed with the DOJ shall have been resolved?
Ruling
YES, Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in denying, on the basis of Crespo vs. Mogul, the motions to
suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment until after the
petition for review filed with the DOJ shall have been resolved.
There is nothing in Crespo vs. Mogul which bars the DOJ from taking cognizance of an appeal, by way of a petition for
review, by an accused in a criminal case from an unfavorable ruling of the investigating prosecutor. It merely advised the
DOJ to, "as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when
the complaint or information has already been filed in Court."
Whether the DO would affirm or reverse the challenged Joint Resolution is still a matter of guesswork. Accordingly, it was
premature for respondent Judge Asuncion to deny the motions to suspend proceedings and to deter arraignment on the
following grounds:
This case is already pending in this Court for trial. To follow whatever opinion the Secretary of Justice may have on the
matter would undermine the independence and integrity of this Court. This Court is still capable of administering justice.
Doctrine Learned- In this case I learned that the real and ultimate test of the independence and integrity of this court is
not the filing of the aforementioned motions [to suspend proceedings and issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer
arraignment] at that stage but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution
of the petition for review reversing the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor. However, once a motion to dismiss
or withdraw the information is filed the trial judge may grant or deny it, not out of subservience to the Secretary of Justice,
but in faithful exercise of judicial prerogative.

Paul G. Roberts, Et Al. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul G. Roberts, Et Al. v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul G. Roberts, Et Al. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.

113930, March 5, 1996

You might also like