Scribd
Upload
290 views2 pages

Flores v. Gonzales

This case discusses the remedies available when a prosecutor determines that there is no probable cause in a criminal complaint. Specifically, the aggrieved party can appeal the prosecutor's resolution to the Secretary of Justice via a motion for reconsideration. Alternatively, if the Secretary of Justice commits a grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved party can file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. Here, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for estafa, which the city prosecutor dismissed. The petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who initially dismissed the appeal but later ordered the case to be filed in court. However, the Secretary later withdrew this order, so the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari

Uploaded by

Darwin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
290 views2 pages

Flores v. Gonzales

This case discusses the remedies available when a prosecutor determines that there is no probable cause in a criminal complaint. Specifically, the aggrieved party can appeal the prosecutor's resolution to the Secretary of Justice via a motion for reconsideration. Alternatively, if the Secretary of Justice commits a grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved party can file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. Here, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for estafa, which the city prosecutor dismissed. The petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who initially dismissed the appeal but later ordered the case to be filed in court. However, the Secretary later withdrew this order, so the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari

Uploaded by

Darwin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

42. Leonardo Flores v. Hon. Raul S.

Gonzales
GR No. 188197 August 3, 2010 J. Nachura
Topic: Remedies in determination of probable cause

Possible Remedies under this case:


1. Appeal to SOJ via Motion for Reconsideration from Prosecutor’s Resolution. (This is the remedy used by the parties)
2. A Rule 65 petition Assailing GADALEJ against SOJ if there is adverse decision and GADALEJ.

Doctrine: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, anchored on the alleged grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of Secretary of Justice, was an available remedy to Flores as an
aggrieved party.

Facts:
1. Petitioner Leonardo U. Flores (Flores) filed a complaint-affidavit against private respondent Eugene Lim (Lim) for estafa
before the City Prosecutor of Cebu City. The City Prosecutor of Cebu City issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2005
dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause.
2. Flores filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice questioning the January 16, 2005 and the June 2, 2005
Resolutions.
3. The Secretary of Justice dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no showing of any reversible error on the
part of the handling prosecutors. However, the consequently Secretary of Justice reconsidered and ordered for the
filling of the case.
4. Pursuant to the said directive, the Cebu City Prosecutor filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cebu City
an Information against Lim for the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
5. Lim filed a motion for reconsideration for the adverse Resolution of the SOJ (the one in #3). The Secretary of Justice
reconsidered anew and issued another Resolution and ordered to WITHDRAW the information.
6. Accordingly, on May 3, 2007, the Cebu City Prosecutor filed with the MTCC a Motion to Withdraw Information
7. Seeking to nullify the March 22, 2007 Resolution, Flores filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on May
22, 2007.
8. Meanwhile, on June 20, 2007, the MTCC issued its Resolution denying the Motion to Withdraw Information.

Issue: Whether the denial of the withdrawal of the information would render the certiorari petition in the CA moot and academic.
Held: Yes. It would render it moot and academic

With respect to the first issue, we rule in the affirmative.  Indeed, as Crespo declared--

“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.”

Upon filing of the Information, the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the case.

Lim filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 31, 2006 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice.  There was nothing
procedurally infirm in this course of action inasmuch as there is nothing in Crespo that bars the Secretary of Justice from
reviewing resolutions of his subordinates in an appeal or petition for review in criminal cases.  The Secretary of Justice was
merely advised in Crespo that, as far as practicable, he should not take cognizance of an appeal when the complaint or
information is already filed in court.

Review, whether on appeal or on motion for reconsideration, as an act of supervision and control by the Secretary of
Justice over the prosecutors, finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies which holds that mistakes,
abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative agency may be corrected
by higher administrative authorities, and not directly by courts.

We wish to point out that, notwithstanding the pendency of the Information before the MTCC, especially considering
the reversal by the Secretary of Justice of his May 31, 2006 Resolution, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, anchored on the alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of Secretary of
Justice, was an available remedy to Flores as an aggrieved party.

In the petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals is not being asked to cause the dismissal of the case in the trial court,
but only to resolve the issue of whether the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion in either affirming or
reversing the... finding of probable cause against the accused.

But still the rule stands--the decision whether to dismiss the case or not rests on the sound discretion of the trial
court where the Information was filed.

As jurisdiction was already acquired by the MTCC, this jurisdiction is not lost despite a resolution by the Secretary of
Justice to withdraw the information or to dismiss the case, notwithstanding the deferment or suspension of the arraignment
of the accused and further proceedings, and not even if the Secretary of Justice is affirmed by the higher courts.

Verily, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, in spite of
being affirmed by the appellate courts, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it
may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

You might also like