SEBASTIAN SERAG, LINO NAPAO, THOMIX SEGUMALIAN, JOSE OLIVER SEGUMALIAN, RODOLFO TALANQUINES, ROQUE

SANMILLAN, EDGAR STA. CRUZ, ELEAZAR SAÑOL, NEMESIO PANUGOT, TEODORICO DELA CRUZ, VICENTE DELA CRUZ,
ABRAHAM DELA CRUZ* and MARILYN SILFAVAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and MA. DAISY SIBYA, Respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

FACTS:

Atty. Silva was shot dead in front of his residence. His driver was also wounded. Criminal charges were filed against Incumbent Mayor Napao and
Sebastian Serag for Murder and Attempted Murder. The Provincial Prosecutor filed 2 infos in the Regional Trial Court. A supplementary complaint
was filed by Daisy (widow of Atty Silva). In lieu of said supplementary complaint, Prov. Prosecutor amended the Informations as it included the
charge of violating PD 1866 and added additional unidentified suspects.

Napao and other accused filed an appeal before the DOJ questioning the finding of the probable cause for said crimes. Pending appeal, RTC found
probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against all accused. Also, because of the pending appeal, the proceedings for the cases were suspended until
a resolution is given. The arraignment of the accused previously set on May 21, 2002 was reset to June 6, 2002. Said resetting was intransferrable.
However, on May 20, 2002, a resolution has been issued by the DOJ, downgrading the charges of accused from Murder to Homicide and Attempted
Murder to Attempted Homicide. Said resolution was received on May 27, 2002. DOJ Sec also directed Prov. Prosecutor to amend the information for
the third time changing the charges.

Private prosecutors opposed (in open court) the motion to amend information of the Prov. Prosecutor as it appears that the Private Complainant Daisy
filed a motion for reconsideration to the DOJ on June 4, 2002. As per Private Prosecutors, approval of the motion is considered premature because
DOJ has yet to issue a resolution as to the MR filed. Despite such, RTC verbally granted the motion and dismissed the cases without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. RTC also arraigned the accused. RTC raised that the pending resolution of the DOJ is not bar to defer arraignment. Said case was
refiled before the MTC were they were also arraigned.

The Private Complainant appealed the said order (arraignment and granting of motion) before the CA (CA GR 73035). She still raised the argument
that the said actions were premature and the arraignment proceedings/orders be declared null and void. CA issued a TRO enjoining the RTC.

On November 18, 2002, the MR filed before the DOJ has been granted. SOJ find that the killing of Atty. Silva was qualified by treachery. DOJ
reinstated the previously filed info (1st one).

Accused filed an MR to the said DOJ resolution. They argued that their arraignment in RTC and MTC was sufficient ground for DOJ to deny the MR
filed by Daisy as it would be in accordance to Sec. 7(2) of DOJ Circular no. 70. DOJ Denied the motion.

Napao filed a petition before the CA, it was also denied for failure to comply with the Rules of Court Rule 43 Sec. 2 and Rule 7 Sec. 5. Napao also
filed a petition to the SC (GR no. 163557) but it was likewise denied.

Daisy filed an urgent manifestation and motion before the CA praying that it resolve her first petition (CA GR 73035), which is to declare the
arraignment orders null and void. CA denied the motion and dismissed the previous petition to declare the arraignment void for being moot and
academic. Daisy filed another motion for reconsideration raising that the DOJ resolution could not be implemented unless the assailed arraignment be
declared null and void. CA granted the motion.

Thus this petition.

ACCUSED argues that: the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion because it nullified the
arraignment orders (June 6 RTC and July 26MTC). That due to the issuance of the current DOJ resolution the petition for nullification of the
arraignment orders are considered moot and academic. That the CA deprived the RTC of its jurisdiction as it issued a TRO preventing the Prov.
Prosecutor to file any amended information pursuant to the latest DOJ reso.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the Orders of the RTC and MTC
instead of dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 73035 for being moot and academic. – NO.

DISCUSSION:

On the other hand, the issue raised by the private respondent in her petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 73035 was whether the CA committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the Orders of the RTC and MTC. Thus, the dismissal by
this Court of the petition in G.R. No. 163557 and the consequent affirmance of the latest Resolution of the Secretary of Justice did not
render the issues raised in this case moot and academic.

The court has to resolve the issue of whether the RTC abused its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in granting the
Provincial Prosecutor's motion for the admission of the Second Amended Information and in proceeding with the petitioners' arraignment
for homicide. The Secretary of Justice could not have resolved the said issues, as only the CA and this Court on appeal under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court are competent to do so.

The appellate court's nullification of the orders are well-founded. Section 13 of DOJ Circular No. 70 reads:
 SECTION 13. Motion for reconsideration. 'The aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible
period of ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution on appeal, furnishing the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned with
copies thereof and submitting proof of such service. No second or further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

On May 27 2002 Daisy received a copy of Resolution No. 258 (first reso) of the Secretary of Justice downgrading the charges from murder
and attempted murder to homicide and attempted homicide. She had the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
resolution on or before June 6, 2002. With such filing it behooved the RTC to suspend the proceedings until after the Secretary of Justice
had resolved such motion with finality, including the consideration of the motion of the Provincial Prosecutor for the admission of the
Second Amended Information for homicide, the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 926, and the arraignment of the petitioners for homicide. It
was, in fact, premature for the Provincial Prosecutor to file such motion for the admission of the Second Amended Information since the
Secretary of Justice had not yet resolved the said motion.

Accordingly, SC rules that 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.

RTC acted with inordinate and precipitate haste when it granted the Provincial Prosecutor's motion for the admission of the Second
Amended Information for homicide, ordered the withdrawal of Criminal Case No. 926 for attempted homicide based on Resolution No.
258 of the DOJ Secretary, and arraigned the accused therein for homicide. Therefore, 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. It should be considered that the
motion to defer was even with the conformity of the public prosecutor and the appearance of the private prosecutors is pursuant to Section
16, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. 'Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.

DOJ cannot be stripped of his authority to act on and resolve the aforesaid motion of the private complainant on the Prosecutor's insistence
that the accused be arraigned on June 6, 2002. Indeed, under Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70, the Secretary of Justice may resolve the
said motion despite the arraignment of the petitioners:

SECTION 7. Action on the petition. - The Secretary of Justice may dismiss the petition outright if he finds the same to be patently without
merit or manifestly intended for delay, or when the issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, the petition shall not be given due course if the accused had
already been arraigned. Any arraignment made after the filing of the petition shall not bar the Secretary of Justice from exercising his
power of review.

The petition is hereby denied.