PEOPLE v. JOJO GR. NO. 180109: W/N CA Erred in Dismissing The Case

PEOPLE v. JOJO GR. NO.
180109
FACTS:
An Information for Murder was filed against respondent Jojo, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar, and two
others for the death of Rolando Diocton, an employee of the San Jorge municipal government. Presiding Judge
Rosario Bandal denied the motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. On appeal by the prosecution, Judge
Bandal inhibited herself but denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondents filed their own petition for
change of venue before the Supreme Court, alleging that the presiding judge who took over the case, Judge
Roberto Navidad, was a pawn in the political persecution being staged against them. The Secretary of Justice
ruled that the evidence adduced against respondents was sufficient to establish probable cause for the offense
charged. Judge Navidad then proceeded with the preliminary inquiry on the existence of probable cause, and,
in an Order dated February 20, 2007, ruled that the finding of probable cause was supported by the evidence on
record. He then issued warrants of arrest against respondents.
On appeal, CA issued a TRO, ordering that warrants of arrest be set aside, and dismissing the criminal case
with the ff. grounds:
1. that Judge Navidad failed to abide by the constitutional mandate for him to personally determine the
existence of probable cause.
2. that the Information was not supported by the allegations in the submitted affidavits. It pointed out
that the Information charged respondents as principals by direct participation, but the complaint-
affidavit and supporting affidavits uniformly alleged that respondents were not at the scene of the
shooting.
3. that the allegations in the complaint-affidavit and supporting affidavits were insufficient to establish
probable cause. It said that there was nothing in the affidavits to show acts that would support the
prosecution’s theory that respondents were also charged as principals by conspiracy
On appeal to Supreme Court, petitioner avers the ff.
1. the judge himself personally examined the records and found that there was probable cause for the
issuance of warrants of arrest
2. that a perceived defect in the Information is not jurisdictional as the same may be amended anytime
before arraignment or with leave of court after arraignment
3. that respondents had not shown any clear and unmistakable right to the relief they sought
4. that Supreme Court has laid down the rule that criminal prosecution cannot be enjoined, and any
exception to this rule must be convincingly established.
ISSUE:
w/n CA erred in dismissing the case.
RULING:
YES. On the issue of personal determination, t he language of the Order clearly shows that the judge made
his own personal determination of the existence of probable cause by examining not only the prosecutor’s
report but also his supporting evidence, consisting mainly of the sworn statements of the prosecution’s
witnesses. In Soliven v. Makasiar,49 the Court explained that this constitutional provision does not mandatorily
require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally
evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutor’s
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.
In dismissing the case, CA likewise overlooked a fundamental rule we follow in this jurisdiction. It is an
established doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest
requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society. The SC
has recognized exceptions to this rule, in certain instances, political persecution or political motives may have
impelled the filing of criminal charges against certain political rivals. But Supreme Court has also ruled that
any allegation that the filing of the charges is politically motivated cannot justify the prohibition of a criminal
prosecution if there is otherwise evidence to support the charges. In this case, the judge, upon his personal
examination of the complaint and evidence before him, determined that there was probable cause to issue the
warrants of arrest after the provincial prosecution, based on the affidavits presented by complainant and her
witnesses, found probable cause to file the criminal Information. This finding of the Provincial Prosecutor was
affirmed by the Secretary of Justice. To establish political harassment, respondents must prove that the public
prosecutor, not just the private complainant, acted in bad faith in prosecuting the case or has lent himself to a
scheme that could have no other purpose than to place respondents in contempt and disrepute. 60 It must be
shown that the complainant possesses the power and the influence to control the prosecution of cases

PEOPLE v. JOJO GR. NO. 180109: W/N CA Erred in Dismissing The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. JOJO GR. NO. 180109: W/N CA Erred in Dismissing The Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

PEOPLE v. JOJO GR. NO. 180109: W/N CA Erred in Dismissing The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. JOJO GR. NO.

On appeal to Supreme Court, petitioner avers the ff.

w/n CA erred in dismissing the case.

You might also like