|
HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES, Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 182651
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
JONATHAN HONRALES, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x PEOPLE OF THE Petitioners, -versus- JONATHAN HONRALES, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 182657 Present: Carpio Morales, J., Chairperson, brion, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ,* and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before this Court are petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the October 1, 2007 Decision[1] and April 3, 2008 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92755.
The antecedents are as follows:
On
That on or about August 19,
Contrary to law.
On
On
In view of respondent’s motion for reconsideration, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Alfredo E. Ednave moved that the RTC defer proceedings.[7] Respondent in turn filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Recall Warrant of Arrest,[8] which the public prosecutor opposed.[9]
On
On May 21, 2003, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Laura D. Biglang-Awa filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Reinvestigation[11] with the RTC in light of the affidavit of one (1) Michelle C. Luna, which respondent, in his motion/supplemental motion for reconsideration, argues “will belie the statement of witness for the complainant, John James Honrales that the shooting of the victim . . . was intentional.”
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
The following day or on
On
On
On
That on
or about August 19, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
being then in possession of a 45 cal. pistol, did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously, after removing the bullets of the gun in a careless, reckless,
negligent and imprudent manner playfully poked the gun to his maid, son and to
his wife, by then and there accidentally shooting upon one JANE HONRALES, his
legal wife, inflicting upon the latter a gun shot wound of the head and the neck
which was the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Determined to have respondent prosecuted for parricide, petitioner heirs filed a petition for review[20] with the DOJ questioning the downgrading of the offense. They likewise filed an Opposition to Motion to Withdraw Information[21] with the RTC arguing that there was no final resolution yet downgrading the charge against respondent that would justify withdrawal of the Information for parricide.
On
On March 17, 2004, the DOJ, through Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño, dismissed the petitions for review assailing (1) the Order dated November 17, 2003 of Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay denying the urgent motion to reconsider Office Order No. 1640 and (2) the Resolution dated December 19, 2003 finding probable cause against respondent for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide, instead of intentional parricide as charged.[23]
Petitioner heirs moved to reconsider[24]
the Resolution, and the RTC of Manila issued an Order[25]
on
On
Undaunted by the denial of their motion for reconsideration,
however, petitioners again filed a petition for review[28]
with the DOJ on
Contending that the petition for review before the DOJ questioning the downgrading of the offense was no longer an impediment to the resolution of the pending Motion to Withdraw Information, respondent promptly filed with the RTC a Manifestation with Reiteration to Resolve the Motion to Withdraw Information.[30]
On
In the meantime, on
On
On
On
On
On June 6, 2005, petitioner heirs filed before the CA an appeal by certiorari[39] under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the denial by the OP of their motion for reconsideration.
On
Shortly thereafter, Judge Barrios issued an Order[41]
on
On October 14, 2005, petitioner heirs filed a motion for reconsideration[42] of the September 26, 2005 Order but their motion was noted without action on November 3, 2005, as it was made without the approval or intervention of the Public Prosecutor.[43]
On
On
On
Petitioner heirs and the OSG moved to reconsider the CA
decision, but their motions were denied on
Petitioner heirs argue that the MeTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the case for parricide through reckless imprudence and that jurisdiction remained with the 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 reinvestigation and question the hasty arraignment of accused which was done allegedly without notice to petitioner heirs and without them being furnished with the result of the reinvestigation. They even claim that they were not furnished with a copy of the motion for leave to conduct reinvestigation as it was sent to the wrong address. Petitioner heirs further argue that when respondent immediately pleaded guilty to the charge for reckless imprudence without notice to them, such a plea cannot be legally invoked in respondent’s defense of double jeopardy. Also, the Information for parricide was still pending with the RTC when accused was hastily arraigned for the downgraded offense. Thus, not all requisites of double jeopardy are present.
The OSG, for its part, argues that the MeTC could not have validly acquired jurisdiction over the case for the same offense of parricide or any offense necessarily included therein because the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the Information for parricide before the RTC remained unacted upon by the said court.
Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that if the petition is granted, it would violate his right against double jeopardy. The first jeopardy has already attached because there was a valid indictment, arraignment and plea and the proceedings were already terminated as he is already serving sentence and has applied for probation. He also contends that proceeding with reinvestigation was justified since the principal action can continue if there is no order from the appellate court to stop the proceedings. He further argues that petitioner heirs have no right to file this appeal especially since the appeal was filed by petitioner heirs without the public prosecutor’s conformity. Respondent likewise contends that it is already too late for petitioner heirs to question the validity of the MeTC proceedings since its decision has become final and executory, no appeal having been taken from the decision. Also, petitioner heirs failed to present evidence to prove that there was fraud in the reinvestigation and subsequent plea to a lesser offense.
We grant the petitions.
It is beyond cavil that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record.[48] By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor that it is 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 for our resolution is whether the case may be remanded to the RTC without violating respondent’s right against double jeopardy. On this question, we find the answer to be in the affirmative.
Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended provides:
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. – When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
x x x x
Thus, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first 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 parricide[51]
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 judgment 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
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO
D. BRION Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
MARIA
Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third
Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Chief Justice |
*
Designated additional member per
Raffle of
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 182651), pp. 27-34. Penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court) concurring.
[2]
[3] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 3-5.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] Records, Vol. 2, pp. 4-5.
[37]
[38]
[39] CA rollo, pp. 63-79.
[40] Records, Vol. 2, p. 63.
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] CA rollo, pp. 2-15.
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48] See
[49] People
v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 168982,
[50] Nos. L-38579 & L-39951,
[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).
[52]