Case Digest

Case No.: G.R. No. 209330

Case Title: Secretary Leila de Lima, Assistant State Prosecutor Stewart Allan A. Mariano, Assistant State
Prosecutor Vimar M. Barcellano, and Assistant State Prosecutor Gerard E. Gaerlan, Petitioners, v. Mario Joel
T. Reyes, Respondent.
Date: January 11, 2016

Topic: Power of the President: The Control Power

Summary of Facts:
- Dr. Gerardo Ortega was murdered, leading to the arrest of Marlon Recamata, who confessed and implicated
others, including former Palawan Governor Mario Joel Reyes.
- The first panel dismissed the case, prompting a complainant's request for a reinvestigation.
- Department Order No. 710 was issued, creating a second panel of prosecutors for reinvestigation.
- The second panel found probable cause, leading to arrest warrants, but the Reyes brothers had left the
country.
- The Court of Appeals nullified Department Order No. 710, reinstating the first panel's resolutions, citing grave
abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice.

Issues:
1. Whether the Secretary of Justice's actions were an executive function beyond the scope of certiorari.
2. Whether the Secretary had the authority to create a new panel.
3. Whether the petition was rendered moot by the filing of information in court.

Ruling and Decision:

- The Supreme Court clarified that the Secretary of Justice's determination of probable cause is not quasi-
judicial but subject to judicial review if tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
- The Secretary has the authority to issue Department Order No. 710 under existing laws and rules.
- A petition for certiorari can be filed to question the Secretary's exercise of executive power if alleged to be
arbitrary, despotic, or a clear evasion of duty.
- The case is not moot, as the alleged abuse of discretion occurred during the preliminary investigation stage.
- The Secretary's authority is rooted in Republic Act No. 10071, granting powers to address matters involving
national security or potential miscarriages of justice.
- The Secretary can intervene to prevent miscarriages of justice, even without a petition, and has the power to
review, reverse, revise, modify, or affirm final judgments and orders.
- The court emphasizes the inquisitorial nature of preliminary investigations, protecting the innocent and
preventing unnecessary trials.
- Once information is filed, the court gains jurisdiction, and any motion to dismiss or determine guilt rests with
the court's discretion.
- The court advises against proceeding with a Petition for Review when the trial court issues a warrant of
arrest, as jurisdiction transfers to the trial court.
- The petition is dismissed as moot, directing the trial court to proceed with the prosecution.

Doctrine Highlight:
- The Secretary of Justice's discretionary power to act on matters that might lead to a miscarriage of justice,
including the conduct of reinvestigation, is supported by Republic Act No. 10071, specifically Section 4, and
legal precedents such as Ledesma v. Court of Appeals and Rural Community Bank of Guimba v. Hon.
Talavera.
- The court emphasizes that a petition for certiorari can be filed to question the Secretary of Justice's exercise
of executive power if it is alleged to be arbitrary, despotic, or a clear evasion of duty.
- The filing of an information and a trial court's issuance of a warrant of arrest make the Petition for Review
moot, as jurisdiction transfers to the trial court.
- The court advises against proceeding with the resolution of a Petition for Review when the trial court has
issued a warrant of arrest, and the trial court's determination of probable cause is considered an independent
and final decision.

In the provided case (G.R. No. 209330), the control power of the President is not explicitly discussed. The
focus of the case is on the discretionary power of the Secretary of Justice in conducting a preliminary
investigation and the subsequent judicial review of the Secretary's actions. The President's control power over
the executive branch, including the Department of Justice, is not directly addressed in the case.

However, it's important to note that the control power of the President over the executive branch is a
constitutional principle in many jurisdictions, including the Philippines. The President, as the head of the
executive department, has the authority to control, supervise, and ensure that laws are faithfully executed. This
control power allows the President to direct the actions of executive officials, including the Secretary of Justice.

In the context of the case, it can be inferred that the Secretary of Justice, as a member of the executive
branch, exercises her authority under the control of the President. The discretionary powers exercised by the
Secretary of Justice, such as the creation of a second panel for reinvestigation, are likely done within the
framework of the President's control over the executive branch.

In summary, while the case does not explicitly discuss the President's control power, it can be understood that
executive officials, including the Secretary of Justice, operate under the constitutional principle of executive
control exercised by the President.