(12) gandarosa vs. flores and people

7/24/2019 (12) Gandarosa vs. Flores and People

1/3

MUSTAPHA M. GANDAROSA, vs. EVARISTO FLORES and PP, NAZARIO, J.: G.R. No. 16!1"

J#$% 1, &""

FA'TS

2000. The Daily Informer, a newspaper of daily circulation in Iloilo City, touted the banner headline,

"Gandarosa Wants lores !ut for ersonal Con#enience$ %&ac'(door(pay) anomaly e*posed." +ccordinto the article, petitioner, as the +-D of the &I- ( -!, re#ealed to members of the media that hih(ran'in

&I- officials, amon them -D onia lores and -e#enue District !fficer Willy /arnola, are in#ol#ed in

anomalous transactions to fa#or certain ta*payers in the assessment of their ta*es. + photo of lores and

/arnola was similarly plastered on the newspaper)s front pae. This prompted respondent #aristo

lores, husband of onia lores and with the conformity of the latter, to file a Complaint aainst petitioner

1anny -ealado +lcalde, the author of the aforesaid article and -ey . +lcalde and &ernie G. 1ia3ue,

editor and publisher, respecti#ely, of the Daily Informer.. In#estiatin rosecutor issued a -esolution

findin probable cause to hold petitioner and his therein co(respondents liable for 4ibel. etitioner souht

reconsideration thereon. P(nd)n* the resolution of the 1otion for -econsideration, an Information for

4ibel was filed before the -TC aainst petitioner.

2005, petitioner filed an *tremely 6rent 1otion to uspend roceedins before the -TC, statin thereinthat he had a pendin 1otion for -econsideration with the !ffice of the City rosecutor which souht to

re#erse its findin of probable cause aainst him. The !ffice of the City rosecutor released a

-esolution d(n%)n* petitioner)s 1- which found probable cause aainst him for 4ibel. The !ffice of the

rosecutor declared that it had lost 7urisdiction o#er the case upon the filin of the Information for 4ibel in

the proper court.

The -TC denied his *tremely 6rent 1otion to uspend roceedins. The -TC spelled out its raison

d89tre, thus: The grounds advanced by the [petitioner] to suspend proceedings, namely, that there is a

pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by [petitioner] with the City Prosecutor and that probable cause

against him does not eist are not legal grounds to suspend proceedings especially when the Court has

ac!uired valid "urisdiction over the accused# $nder %ec# &&'c(, Rule &&), Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: 'c( a petition for review of the

resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the *epartment of +ustice of the ffice of the President-

provided, that the period of suspension shall not eceed sity './( days counted from the filing of the

petition with the reviewing office#

etitioner filed an !mnibus 1otion, see'in reconsideration of the abo#e !rder, and for the 3uashal of

the Information. endin the resolution of his !mnibus 1otion before the -TC, petitioner arie#ed by

the earlier denial by the !ffice of the City rosecutor of his 1otion for -econsideration, filed a etition for

-e#iew with the Department of :ustice ;D!:


2/3

etitioner souht reconsideration thereon. The -TC found the 1otion to be well(ta'en. ?ence, petitioner

was arrained. ?e pleaded not uilty to the chare. Thereafter, the case was set for pre(trial.

e#eral months followin his arrainment, the D!: issued a -esolution re#ersin the -esolution of the

City rosecutor of Iloilo City, and directin the amendment of the Information for 4ibel and the droppin of

petitioner from the chare. It held that the accusation is not synonymous with uilt and only the persons

who publish, e*hibit, or cause the publication or e*hibition of any defamation in writin are the onesresponsible for 4ibel and from the e#idence presented, petitioner did not cause the same.

In obedience to the D!: -esolution of 52 ebruary 2002, the !ffice of the City rosecutor filed with the

-TC a 1otion with 4ea#e of Court to +mend Information

The -TC D/ID 1otion to +mend Information.

DI!ITI@ !-TI!/A 0t must be remembered that said [petitioner] was already arraigned on ctober

1/, 2//&, and the pre3trial set thereafter# [Petitioner] did not disclose to the *epartment of +ustice that he

was already arraigned, otherwise, had he done so, the *epartment of +ustice, could have dismissed his

appeal for being moot and academic#

4onetheless, this instant Motion [to 5mend 0nformation] [was] filed after the said [petitioner] has already

been arraigned# Under Section 4, Rule 117, which allows the amendment of complaint or information,

the same shall be done before the accused entered his plea, hence, the desirability of amendment, since

the Court will not entertain any Motion to 6uash, after the arraignment pursuant to %ection &, Rule

&&)# This is so because with accused[s] arraignment, the issue has been "oined#

Thus, this Court having already ac!uired "urisdiction, does not lose it despite the resolution of the

%ecretary of +ustice# 0t has the option to grant or deny the Motion to *ismiss filed by the fiscal, whether

before or after the arraignment of the accused '7edesma v# Court of 5ppeals, 2)8 %CR5 .9)(#

etitioner souht reconsideration of the -TCs denial to amend the Information by filin an !mnibus

1otion. -TC D/ID for lac' of merit, and set the case for pre(trial. C+ affirmed the -TC and dismissed

the petition. ?ence this etition

ISSUE:

5. W!/ -TC committed ra#e abuse of discretion in denyin the 1otion to +mend the Information

to e*clude petitioner from the chare for the reason that it relied solely on the round that it had

ac3uired 7urisdiction o#er the case2. W!/ the e#aluation of probable cause should be ta'en to mean that -TC was adoptin the

prosecutor)s earlier findins of probable cause.

HELD

1. /!. Contrary to petitioners contention, a cursory readin of the assailed !rder would re#eal thatthe -TC did not deny the 1otion on the lone basis that it had already ac3uired 7urisdiction o#er

the criminal action. It denied the 1otion on more formidable leal rounds. The crucial fact

is petitioner was unconditionally arrained. ?e was arrained with the assistance of his counsel,

+tty. 1arlou 6bano. ?e already entered his plea durin his arrainment. ubse3uently, a plea of

not uilty was set in the records.


3/3

:urisprudence is clear that with the arrainment of the petitioner, the D!: ecretary can no loner

entertain the appeal or petition for re#iew because petitioner had already wai#ed or abandoned the

same. In the case at bar, followin petitioners arrainment, he is deemed to ha#e wai#ed or abandoned

his petition for re#iew earlier filed with the D!: ecretary.

The alleation that the -TC did not ma'e an independent e#aluation of the e#idence to determine the

e*istence of probable cause becomes immaterial in liht of petitioners unconditionalarrainment. etitioners arrainment constitutes a wai#er of her riht to preliminary in#estiation or

rein#estiation. uch wai#er is tantamount to a findin of probable cause. ?ence, the determination of the

e*istence or non(e*istence of probable cause becomes unnecessary. ollowin petitioners arrainment, it

was no loner the -TCs duty to ma'e an independent findin of the e#idence before it for the

determination of probable cause.

We do not herein abandon the rulin that the trial court has the duty to ma'e an independent assessment

of the merits of the motion when confronted with a motion to withdraw an information on the round of

lac' of probable cause based on a resolution of the secretary of 7ustice. urely, trial courts are called to

#alidly and properly e*ercise 7udicial discretion and independence. &ut where the accused has already

been arrained without reser#ation, condition or restriction, in line with our rulin in +dasa #.+balos, the

unconditional arrainment constitutes a wai#er of his riht to preliminary in#estiation or

rein#estiation. Conse3uently, there is a wai#er or abandonment of his petition for re#iew before the

Department of :ustice. In li'e manner, therefore, the trial court has no more need to ma'e an independent

assessment of the e#idence before it to determine probable cause. Trial ensues. Con#ersely, with the

arrainment of the accused, the D!: ecretary can no loner entertain the appeal or petition for re#iew

because the accused has already wai#ed or abandoned the same.

2. /!. irst, there is no 3uestion that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the

case such as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the court.

Indeed, in Crespo #. 1oul, it was emphasiBed that when a criminal action is initiated #ia the

filin of a complaint or information in court, the court thereby ac3uires 7urisdiction o#er the

case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case.

(12) gandarosa vs. flores and people

Documents