Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 440 views

    Appeal Before Doj Is Sufficient To Defer Court Proceedings

    Uploaded by

    Innah Montala
    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must defer proceedings in a criminal case if there is a pending appeal before the Department of Justice regarding the prosecutor's resolution. In this case, private complainants filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ after it downgraded the charges against the accused. However, the trial court proceeded with arraignment. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is sufficient reason for the trial court to defer the case until the appeal is resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Appeal Before Doj Is Sufficient To Defer Court Proceedings

    Uploaded by

    Innah Montala
    440 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must defer proceedings in a criminal case if there is a pending appeal before the Department of Justice regarding the prosecutor's resolution. In this case, private complainants filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ after it downgraded the charges against the accused. However, the trial court proceeded with arraignment. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is sufficient reason for the trial court to defer the case until the appeal is resolved.

    Original Title

    2- Serag v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must defer proceedings in a criminal case if there is a pending appeal before the Department of Justice regarding the prosecutor's resolution. In this case, private complainants filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ after it downgraded the charges against the accused. However, the trial court proceeded with arraignment. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is sufficient reason for the trial court to defer the case until the appeal is resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    440 views2 pages

    Appeal Before Doj Is Sufficient To Defer Court Proceedings

    Uploaded by

    Innah Montala
    The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court must defer proceedings in a criminal case if there is a pending appeal before the Department of Justice regarding the prosecutor's resolution. In this case, private complainants filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ after it downgraded the charges against the accused. However, the trial court proceeded with arraignment. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is sufficient reason for the trial court to defer the case until the appeal is resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    APPEAL BEFORE DOJ IS SUFFICIENT TO DEFER COURT PROCEEDINGS

    Serag v. Court of appeals


    G.R. NO. 163818 October 20, 2005
    Callejo, Sr., J.

    DOCTRINE: The trial court in a criminal case which takes cognizance of an accused's
    motion for review of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor or for reinvestigation and
    defers the arraignment until resolution of the said motion must act on the resolution
    reversing the investigating prosecutor's finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon
    only upon proof that such resolution is already final in that no appeal was taken therefrom
    to the Department of Justice. 

    FACTS: A mayoralty candidate in San Joacquin, Iloilo was shot to death in front of his
    residence. His driver was also wounded as a result. Following this, a complaint was filed
    against the accused (the incumbent mayor & Serag) for murder and attempted murder
    with the use of unlicensed firearms. Subsequently, an Information was filed by the
    Provincial Prosecutor charging the same offenses before the RTC.

    RESOLUTION OF THE RTC: The trial court found probable cause that the crimes
    charged has been committed and ordered for the issuance of warrants of arrest.

    PETITION FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE DOJ: Aggrieved, the accused filed a petition for
    review before the DOJ.

    ARRAIGNMENT: Following the Resolution of the RTC, an arraignment was set on MAY 21,
    2002. Accused were arraigned for the crimes of Murder And Attempted Murder.

    RESOLUTION OF DOJ: The Resolution of the DOJ downgraded the crimes charged
    against the accused to HOMICIDE and ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. The Resolution was issued A
    DAY BEFORE THE ARRAIGNMENT (MAY 20, 2002).

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: Aggrieved by DOJ’s Resolution, the private


    respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

    FILING OF SECOND AMENDED INFORMATION: In compliance with DOJ’s Resolution,


    the Private Prosecutor filed a second amended information against the accused for the
    crimes of HOMICIDE AND ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE before the RTC. (For lack of jurisdiction,
    the RTC ordered the re-filing of the Information for Attempted Homicide to the MTC. Hence,
    the only remaining case to be heard before the RTC is HOMICIDE.)

    MOTION TO DEFER ADMISSION OF SECOND AMENDED INFORMATION: The private


    prosecutors (counsel of the private complainants) moved to defer the filing of the second
    amended information in view of the pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by the private
    complainants before the DOJ.

    MOTION TO ADMIT SECOND AMENDED INFO: Upon motion of the Provincial Prosecutor,
    the RTC verbally granted the same.

    ARRAIGNMENT: The RTC proceeded to arraignment arguing that a motion for


    reconsideration of DOJ’s Resolution is not a valid reason for the deferment of the
    arraignment.
    DOJ RESOLUTION ON the MR: DOJ reversed its earlier Resolution and recommended for
    the filing of Information for the crimes of MURDER And ATTEMPTED MURDER. Thus, he
    directed the Provincial Prosecutor to withdraw the Information for Homicide and Attempted
    Homicide.

    MR ON DOJ’s RESOLUTION: Aggrieved by DOJ’s subsequent Resolution, the accused filed


    a MR but was denied. Their Appeal to CA also had the same fate. Hence, the present
    Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE: Whether the RTC may proceed with hearing a case despite a pending appeal before
    the DOJ.

    RULING: NO. The pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is enough reason for the
    deferment of any proceedings in the trial court and petitioner, through the private
    prosecutors, correctly moved for the deferment of the admission of the second amended
    informations for homicide and attempted homicide.

    You might also like