DE LIMA VS. REYES chief state prosecutor; Rule 112 Sec.
chief state prosecutor; Rule 112 Sec. 4 Rules on Preliminary Investigation provides that the Secretary of
FACTS:
Doc Gerry Ortega, a veterinarian and famous radio anchor in Palawan was shot dead in Baguio Wagwagan Ukay-
ukay in San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. The police officers arrested one named Recamata who later
made an extrajudicial confession admitting that he killed Ortega with other three companions. One of the
companions named Edrad later revealed that it was the former governor of Palawan, Mario Joel Reyes, who
ordered the killing of Ortega.
DOJ created the first panel of prosecutors to conduct a preliminary investigation. Later, Ortega’s wife, filed a
Supplemental Affidavit-Complaint implicating former Governor Reyes as the mastermind of her husband's murder.
But the first panel of prosecutors dismissed her supplemental affidavit complaint after declaring the conclusion of
preliminary investigation.
Ortega’s wife filed a motion to re-open the investigation as well as a motion for partial reconsideration on the
resolution of the first panel, but the motions were both denied by the first panel.
DOJ created a second panel of prosecutors, to reinvestigate the case to address the additional offer of evidence
denied by the first panel. The creation of second panel of prosecutors was made before Ortega’s wife filed a
petition for review assailing the resolution of the first panel.
The second panel issued a resolution determining probable cause and recommended the filing of information on
all the accused including the former governer. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued but was not enforced
againts the accused because he was out of the country before the warrants were issued.
Reyes filed a petition for review before the secretary of justice assailing the resolution of the second panel of
prosecutors. He likewise filed a petition for certiorari stating that the secretary of justice commited a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in creating a second panel without prior application for
review by the wife of Ortega.
[COURT OF APPEALS: declared the creation of second panel as null and void and upholds the first panel’s
resolution. It likewise held that the secretary of justice committed grave abuse of discretion when she created the
second panel without first reversing or modifying the resolution of the first panel.]
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether the Secretary of Justice may, even without a pending petition for review, motu proprio order
the conduct of a reinvestigation.
2. Whether subsequent filing of petition for certiorari assailing the validity of preliminary investigation
could still be entertained after the filing of information before the court.
RULING:
1. Yes, although the NPS Rule on Appeal requires the filing of a petition for review before the Secretary of
Justice can reverse, affirm, or modify the appealed resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or
Justice may motu proprio reverse or modify resolutions of the provincial or city prosecutor or the chief
state prosecutor even without a pending petition for review. Likewise, in Section 4 of Republic Act No.
10071 the Secretary of Justice has authority to directly act on any "probable miscarriage of justice within
the jurisdiction of the prosecution staff, regional prosecution office, and the provincial prosecutor or the
city prosecutor." Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice may step in and order a reinvestigation even
without a prior motion or petition from a party in order to prevent any probable miscarriage of justice.
2. No, the filing of petition for certiorari has now been rendered moot because the information has been
filed with the trial court and the warrants of arrest had already been issued. Upon the trial court’s
finding of probable cause and issuance of the warrants of arrest, the jurisdiction of the case has now
been ransferred to the sound discretion of the trial court. Once the case had already been brought to
Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be
addressed for the consideration of the Court, the only qualification is that the action of the Court must
not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law.
Thus, the petition has been dismissed for being moot.
PEOPLE VS. EDANO
FACTS:
Manila Drug Enforcement Group, together with their female informant, conducted an entrapment
operation against Edano.
Edano arrived on board a vehicle at mcdonald’s and met the female informant. While both of them were
talking inside the car, the female informant waved her hand at PO3 Corbe. While PO3 Corbe approaches
the vehicle, Edano ran out of the car which made Corbe and his police companion chase Edano.
The policemen were able to apprehend him and later on recovered a transparent plastic containing
shabu and a gun tucked in Edano’s waist. Later, he was brought to the police station together with the
items seized from him.
[RTC: convited Edano.]
[CA: upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest on the ground that he fled upon the arrival of the
policemen which was a valid ground to raise suspicion.]
ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless arrest of appellant in flagrante delicto was valid?
RULING:
No, because the testimony of PO3 Corbe reveals that he has no personal knowledge that a shabu was
inside the car and that Edano and the female informant were inside the car talking to each other. There
 were no exchange of money or drugs when he approached the vehicle. The only reason for the In witness whereof, the parties hereunto set their hands this 27th day of March 1991 at NBI-NCR, Taft
apprehension was the appellant’s flight when the police officers approached his car which allegedly Avenue, Manila.
raises suspicion on the part of the police officers to arrest him. The court likewise underscored that (Sgd.) MRS. JUANITA ASIO-AQUINO
flight per se is not an indication of guilt such as when there is fear of retribution for speaking to officers, Respondent
unwillingness to appear as witness and fear of being wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party. (Sgd.) MRS. TERESITA PAISTE
Complainant
Thus, the court resolves to acquit Edano. Witnesses:
1. Signed (Illegible)
2.
AQUINO VS. PAISTE WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The undersigned accused/respondent hereby waives her right to counsel despite the recital of her
constitutional rights made by NBI agent Ely Tolentino in the presence of a lawyer Gordon S. Uy.}
FACTS:
Aquino filed a complaint against Aquino and her other companions for the crime of estafa. Only Aquino appeared
during the arraignment as the others remained at large, and she pleaded not guilty. During the trial the
Aquino, together with two other companions, went to the house of Paiste to convince her to buy the gold bar prosecution presented the amicable settlement signed in the NBI, as their testimonial evidence.
being sold by an Igorot. They showed Paiste the sample of gold bar and went with them to a pawnshop to test
whether the gold bar was genuine. The Pawnshop positively tested it to be a genuine gold. However, she told the [RTC: convicted the petitioner]
three that she has no money to purchase it.
{CA: affirmed in toto the RTC Decision stating that the investigation before the NBI did not push
through as both parties came to settle the matter amicably. Nonetheless, the CA pointed out that petitioner was
assisted, although unnecessarily, by an independent counsel, a certain Atty. Gordon S. Uy, during the
The next day, the Aquino with her two friends went to the house of Paiste and asked her to join them in proceedings.]
Pampanga to visit the Igorot who sells the gold bar. There they meet the Igorot named, Arnold, and showed the
the gold bar again. He told them that he sells it for 60,000. Again, Paiste insisted that she has no money.
ISSUE:

Two days later, the three went to the house of Paiste again and convince her to buy the gold bar for it was 1. Whethere there were breach of constitutional requirements during the custodial investigation.
reduced to 10,000. They went to Pampanga again to buy the gold bar but Arnold refused to sell it for 10, 000 but 2. Whether the amicable settlement with waiver of right to counsel which Aquino signed during the
for 50,000 instead. Paiste bought the gold bar for 50,000. custodial investigation is admissible as evidence in court.

When Paiste had the gold bar tested, she was told that it was fake. She brought Aquino to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI)-NCR and in the presence of a certain Atty. Tolentino Aquino amicably promised her they would
locate her other companions and the document they both signed would be disregarded should they locate the
others.
{ The amicable settlement reads:
In view of the acceptance of fault by MRS. JUANITA ASIO-AQUINO of the case/complaint filed by MRS.
TERESITA PAISTE before the NBI-National Capital Region for Swindling, Mrs. J. Aquino agreed to pay the
complainant half the amount swindled from the latter. Said P25,000.00 offered by Mrs. J. Aquino as
settlement for the case of Estafa will be paid by her through installment scheme in the amount of
P1,000.00 per month beginning from the month of March, 1991 until fully paid.
RULING:
1. No, there were no breach of constitutional rights during the custodial investigation. The court
underscored that when Aquino was brought by respondent before the NBI to be investigated, she was
already under custodial investigation and the constitutional guarantee for her rights under the Miranda
Rule has set in. She was likewise given Atty. Uy as her counsel while she was still in NBI. However, the
custodial investigation did not push through because the parties agreed to settle the matters amicably.
Assuming arguendo that there was a custodial investigation, Aquino was still afforded her constitutional
rights. Records show that Aquino was given an independent counsel through Atty. Uy. She was deemed
to have engaged Atty. Uy when she conferred with him and thereafter signed the amicable settlement
with waiver of right to counsel in his presence.
2. Yes, the amicable settlement with waiver of right to counsel signed during the custodial investigation is
admissible as evidence. The court opined that an amicable settlement does not partake of the nature of
an extrajudicial confession or admission but is a contract between the parties within the parameters of
their mutually recognized and admitted rights and obligations. Assuming otherwise, that the amicable
settlement is in the nature of an admission, the document petitioner signed would still be admissible
since none of her constitutional rights were violated.

Thus, petition is denied for lack of merit