CRININAL PR0CEB0RE BIuESTS (2u1S - 2u14) ATTY.

TRANQ0IL SALvAB0R


RACBELLE ANNE u0TIERREZ
!"#" %&" '()('* +,-./0.1 '23 455*

67686 9" 6:6;<8

lalnLlffs: 8L8nAuL11L L. AuASA

uefendanL: CLClLLL S. A8ALCS

CASL: Cecllle Abalos flled Lwo complalnLs agalnsL 8ernadeLLe Adasa for
LsLafa. 1he Cfflce of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor found probable cause and flled
Lwo crlmlnal cases agalnsL peLlLloner. 1he 1rlal CourL ordered
relnvesLlgaLlon, buL Lhe prosecuLor malnLalned LhaL Lhere ls probable
cause. AfLer Adasa's arralgnmenL where she enLered an uncondlLlonal
plea of noL gullLy, Adasa flled a eLlLlon for 8evlew ln Lhe uC!. 1he
SecreLary of !usLlce reversed Lhe prosecuLor's resoluLlon and ordered
Lhe wlLhdrawal of Lhe case, whlch Lhe Lrlal courL granLed upon moLlon
of Lhe prosecuLor. 1he CourL of Appeals reversed Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe
1rlal CourL clalmlng LhaL Clrcular no. 70 expressly prohlblLs Lhe
SecreLary of !usLlce from Laklng cognlzance of a eLlLlon for 8evlew flled
Al1L8 Lhe accused has already been arralgned.

1he Supreme CourL upheld Lhe CA's [udgmenL and denled Adasa's clalm
LhaL SecLlon 7 and 12 should be consLrued as granLlng Lhe SecreLary of
!usLlce dlscreLlon on wheLher Lo Lake cognlzance of an appeal or noL.
1he mandaLe of SecLlon 7 and 12 are clear, and Lhere ls no confllcL
beLween Lhe Lwo provlslons. As such, boLh musL be followed accordlng
Lo Lhelr leLLer. 1herefore, Lhe uC! should noL have Laken cognlzance of
Adasa's appeal whlch she flled Al1L8 she had already uncondlLlonally
pleaded noL gullLy. She ls deemed Lo have walved Lhe rlghL Lo
prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon and Lhe rlghL Lo quesLlon any lrregularlLy LhaL
surrounds lL, whlch ls appllcable ln cases of relnvesLlgaLlon.

uCC18lnL: 1he uC! may noL Lake cognlzance of a eLlLlon for 8evlew of
Lhe prosecuLor's ls such was flled Al1L8 Lhe accused has been
arralgned.

:6=>!#<?%7@
! !anuary 18, 2001 ! Cecllle S. Abalos flled Lwo complalnL
affldavlLs agalnsL 8ernadeLLe L. Adasa for LsLafa clalmlng LhaL
Adasa, Lhrough decelL, recelved and encashed Lwo checks
lssued ln Lhe name of Abalos wlLhouL her knowledge and
consenL and LhaL desplLe repeaLed demands by Lhe laLLer,
peLlLloner falled and refused Lo pay Lhe proceeds of Lhe checks.
! March 23, 2001 ! Adasa flled her counLer-affldavlL clalmlng
LhaL she dld recelve and encash Lhe Lwo checks. 8u1 on.
! March 29, 2001 ! Adasa recanLed, and alleged LhaL lL was a
8eble Correa who recelved and encashed Lhe Lwo checks, and
afLer mlsapproprlaLlng Lhe funds, lefL Lhe counLry.
! Aprll 23, 2001 ! 1he Cfflce of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor found
probable cause. As such Lwo separaLe crlmlnal cases were flled
agalnsL Adasa.
o 1hls peLlLlon covers only Crlmlnal Case no. 8782 raffled
Lo 8ranch 3, 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of lllgan ClLy.
! !une 8, 2001 ! upon moLlon of Adasa, Lhe Lrlal courL ordered a
relnvesLlgaLlon, whlch resulLed ln an afflrmaLlon by Lhe
prosecuLor of probable cause ln a resoluLlon daLed AugusL 30.
! CcLober 1, 2001 ! eLlLloner enLered an uncondlLlonal plea of
noL gullLy
! CcLober 13, 2001 ! Adasa flled wlLh Lhe ueparLmenL of !usLlce
(uC!) a eLlLlon for 8evlew, whlch resulLed ln a dlrecLlon Lo
wlLhdraw Lhe lnformaLlon for LsLafa on !uly 11, 2002.
! !uly 23, 2002 ! 1he rosecuLor of lllgan ClLy flled a MoLlon Lo
WlLhdraw lnformaLlon" AB0C, D&E, &F EG,H. 0.I/J,DEKLM
o !uly 26, 2002 ! Abalos flled a moLlon for
reconslderaLlon clLlng SecLlon 7 of uC! Clrcular no. 70
1


1
SECTI0N 7. Action on the petition. The Secietaiy of }ustice may uismiss the petition outiight
if he finus the same to be patently without meiit oi manifestly intenueu foi uelay, oi when the
issues iaiseu theiein aie too unsubstantial to iequiie consiueiation. If an infoimation has been
fileu in couit puisuant to the appealeu iesolution, the petition shall not be given uue couise if
the accuseu hau alieauy been aiiaigneu. Any aiiaignment maue aftei the filing of the petition
shall not bai the Secietaiy of }ustice fiom exeicising his powei of ieview.
CRININAL PR0CEB0RE BIuESTS (2u1S - 2u14) ATTY. TRANQ0IL SALvAB0R


RACBELLE ANNE u0TIERREZ
whlch mandaLes LhaL afLer Lhe accused has been
arralgned, Lhe Sec. of !usLlce cannoL and should noL
Lake cognlzance of Lhe peLlLlon, or even glve due course
LhereLo, buL lnsLead deny lL ouLrlghL.
o !anuary 30, 2003 ! uC! denled Lhe MoLlon for
8econslderaLlon clalmlng LhaL SecLlon 7 ln relaLlon Lo
SecLlon 12
2
of sald clrcular does noL prohlblL Lhe
SecreLary from enLerLalnlng Lhe appeal desplLe
arralgnmenL. 1hls ls due Lo Lhe permlsslve language
"may" uLlllzed ln SecLlon 12 whereby Lhe SecreLary has
Lhe dlscreLlon Lo enLerLaln an appealed resoluLlon
noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe facL LhaL Lhe accused has been
arralgned.
! lebruary 27, 2003 ! 1he 1rlal CourL granLed Lhe wlLhdrawal.
! Abalos flled a eLlLlon for CerLlorarl wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals
who ln Lurn reversed Lhe 8esoluLlons of Lhe uC! saylng (Lhus
supporLlng Abalos' conLenLlon) LhaL slnce peLlLloner was
arralgned before she flled Lhe peLlLlon for revlew wlLh Lhe uC!,
lL was lmperaLlve for Lhe uC! Lo dlsmlss such peLlLlon.
CLher lssues: A!"# %&' "() '") )" *+&, )-./M
o 1he CA declared LhaL Lhe exlsLence of probable cause,
or Lhe lack of lL, cannoL be dealL wlLh by lL slnce facLual
lssues are noL proper sub[ecLs of a eLlLlon for
CerLlorarl.
o 1he CA sald LhaL slnce Lhe Lrlal courL's order relled
solely on Lhe resoluLlons of Lhe uC!, sald order ls vold as

2
SECTI0N 12. Bisposition of the appeal. The Secietaiy may ieveise, affiim oi mouify the
appealeu iesolution. Be may, motu piopiio oi upon motion, uismiss the petition foi ieview on
any of the following giounus:
a) That the petition was fileu beyonu the peiiou piesciibeu in Section S heieof;
b) That the pioceuuie oi any of the iequiiements heiein pioviueu has not been
complieu with;
c) That theie is no showing of any ieveisible eiioi;
u) That the appealeu iesolution is inteilocutoiy in natuie, except when it suspenus the
pioceeuings baseu on the allegeu existence of a piejuuicial question;
e) That the accuseu hau alieauy been aiiaigneu when the appeal was taken;
f) That the offense has alieauy piesciibeu; anu
g) That othei legal oi factual giounus exist to waiiant a uismissal.
lL vlolaLed Lhe rule whlch en[olns Lhe Lrlal courL Lo
assess Lhe evldence presenLed before lL ln a moLlon Lo
dlsmlss and noL Lo rely solely on Lhe prosecuLor's
avermenL LhaL Lhe SecreLary of !usLlce had
recommended Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case.
! eLlLloner (and accused) Adasa flled a MoLlon for
8econslderaLlon whlch was denled. 1hus, she wenL Lo Lhe
Supreme CourL.

N88?O8 B< :O #O8<;PO7@
1. WheLher or noL Lhe uC! can Lake cognlzance of an appeal or
peLlLlon for revlew (of Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
rosecuLor) flled Al1L8 arralgnmenL of an accused.
2. WheLher or noL SecLlon 7 of uC! Clrcular no. 70 applles only Lo
appeals from orlglnal resoluLlon of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor and does
noL apply ln Lhe lnsLanL case where an appeal ls lnLerposed by
peLlLloner from Lhe 8esoluLlon of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor denylng
her moLlon for relnvesLlgaLlon.
3. WheLher or noL eLlLloner's arralgnmenL was null and vold for
allegedly belng lmprovldenLly conducLed

#O8<;?BN<%8 6%7 6#!?QO%B8
N88?O ' ! WheLher or noL Lhe uC! can Lake cognlzance of an appeal or
peLlLlon for revlew (of Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe rosecuLor)
flled Al1L8 arralgnmenL of an accused. ! nC. SecLlon 7 and 12 are noL
conLradlcLory and very clear ln Lhemselves. As such, no oLher
lnLerpreLaLlon needs Lo be applled.

Q6R<# S<N%B '@ 1he all Loo-famlllar rule ln sLaLuLory consLrucLlon, ln
Lhls case, an admlnlsLraLlve rule of procedure, ls LhaL when a sLaLuLe or
rule ls clear and unamblguous, lnLerpreLaLlon need noL be resorLed Lo.
Slnce SecLlon 7 of Lhe sub[ecL clrcular clearly and caLegorlcally dlrecLs
Lhe uC! Lo dlsmlss ouLrlghL an appeal or a peLlLlon for revlew flled afLer
arralgnmenL, no resorL Lo lnLerpreLaLlon ls necessary.
CRININAL PR0CEB0RE BIuESTS (2u1S - 2u14) ATTY. TRANQ0IL SALvAB0R


RACBELLE ANNE u0TIERREZ
1hus, when an accused has already been arralgned, Lhe uC!
musL noL glve Lhe appeal or peLlLlon for revlew due course and
musL dlsmlss Lhe same. 1hls ls bolsLered by Lhe facL LhaL
arralgnmenL of Lhe accused prlor Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe appeal or
peLlLlon for revlew ls seL forLh as one of Lhe grounds for lLs
dlsmlssal. 1herefore, Lhe uC!, noLlng LhaL Lhe arralgnmenL of an
accused prlor Lo Lhe flllng of an appeal or peLlLlon for revlew ls a
ground for dlsmlssal under SecLlon 12, musL go back Lo SecLlon
7 and acL upon as mandaLed Lhereln. ln oLher words, Lhe uC!
musL necessarlly dlsmlss Lhe appeal. (8elaLed Lo Mlnor olnL 1)
lurLhermore, Lhls CourL ls noL bound by Lhe consLrucLlon glven
by Lhe uC!, because lL may dlsregard conLemporaneous
consLrucLlon ln lnsLances where Lhe law or rule consLrued
possesses no amblgulLy. (8elaLed Lo Mlnor olnL 2)
1he word "shall" reLalns lLs mandaLory lmporL, because no
provlslon quallfles lLs appllcaLlon ln conLrasL Lo Lhe provlslon
clLed ln Agapalo's SLaLuLory ConsLrucLlon. (8elaLed Lo Mlnor
olnL 3)

T #?;O8 N% 8B6B?B<#U =<%8B#?=BN<% BV6B N8 ?%7O# =<%BO%BN<%
A0 *+&11! ,"'2) )-.'3 )-./ ./ '+%+//&*! /" 0 4#/) (#) )-+ 5&.' (".')/ 6"*
+&%- #',+* 7&4"* 8".') 9: ;#) .6 !"# <&') )" /++ & 5"*+ ,+)&.1+,
+=(1&'&)."' "6 )-+ *#1+/ "6 /)&)#)"*! %"'/)*#%)."' &/ ,./%#//+, ;! )-+
>"#*): !"# %&' *+&, )-+/+ 5.'"* (".')/M
QN%<# S<N%B '@ 1he rule LhaL Lhe provlslon LhaL appears lasL ln Lhe
order of poslLlon ln Lhe rule or regulaLlon musL prevall ls noL appllcable
because SecLlon 7 ls nelLher conLradlcLory nor lrreconcllable wlLh
SecLlon 12.
eLlLloner's rellance Lo Lhe sLaLuLory prlnclple LhaL "Lhe rule LhaL
Lhe provlslon LhaL appears lasL ln Lhe order of poslLlon ln Lhe
rule or regulaLlon musL prevall" ls noL appllcable, because (1)
SecLlon 7 does noL need furLher consLrucLlon and (2) Lhere ls no
lrreconcllable confllcL beLween SecLlon 7 and SecLlon 12 of
Clrcular 70.
1he rule clLed by Lhe peLlLloner presupposes LhaL "one parL of
Lhe sLaLuLe cannoL be reconclled or harmonlzed wlLh anoLher
parL wlLhouL nulllfylng one ln favor of Lhe oLher."
1he uC! musL evaluaLe Lhe perLlnenL clrcumsLances and Lhe
facLs of Lhe case ln order Lo deLermlne whlch ground or grounds
shall apply.

SecLlon 7 perLalns Lo Lhe acLlon on Lhe
peLlLlon LhaL Lhe uC! musL Lake.

SecLlon 12 enumeraLes
Lhe opLlons Lhe uC! has
wlLh regard Lo Lhe
dlsposlLlon of a peLlLlon
for revlew or of an
appeal.
SecLlon 7 speclflcally applles Lo a slLuaLlon
on whaL Lhe uC! musL do when confronLed
wlLh an appeal or a peLlLlon for revlew LhaL
ls elLher clearly wlLhouL merlL, manlfesLly
lnLended Lo delay, or flled afLer an accused
has already been arralgned, l.e., he may
dlsmlss lL ouLrlghL lf lL ls paLenLly wlLhouL
merlL or manlfesLly lnLended Lo delay, or, lf
lL was flled afLer Lhe acccused has already
been arralgned, Lhe SecreLary shall noL glve
lL due course.
SecLlon 12 applles
generally Lo Lhe
dlsposlLlon of an appeal.


QN%<# S<N%B 4@ Second rule of consLrucLlon clLed ls Lhe rule LhaL Lhe
conLemporaneous consLrucLlon of a sLaLuLe or regulaLlon by Lhe offlcers
who enforce lL should be glven welghL.
1hls rule does noL, however, make such a consLrucLlon
necessarlly conLrolllng or blndlng. lor equally seLLled ls Lhe rule
LhaL courLs may dlsregard conLemporaneous consLrucLlon ln
lnsLances where Lhe law or rule consLrued possesses no
amblgulLy, where Lhe consLrucLlon ls clearly erroneous, where
sLrong reason Lo Lhe conLrary exlsLs, and where Lhe courL has
prevlously glven Lhe sLaLuLe a dlfferenL lnLerpreLaLlon.
CRININAL PR0CEB0RE BIuESTS (2u1S - 2u14) ATTY. TRANQ0IL SALvAB0R


RACBELLE ANNE u0TIERREZ
QN%<# S<N%B T@ 1hlrd rule of consLrucLlon clLed ls llfLed by Lhe
peLlLloner from a porLlon of Agpalo's SLaLuLory ConsLrucLlon where Lhe
word "shall" had been consLrued as a permlsslve, and noL a mandaLory
language.
3

1hls lnLerpreLaLlon ls noL appllcable ln Lhls case because ln Lhe
clLed passage, Lhe word "shall" deparLed from lLs mandaLory
lmporL connoLaLlon because lL was connecLed Lo cerLaln
provlsos/condlLlons: "sub[ecL Lo Lhe avallablllLy of funds" and
"upon such vlolaLlon belng proved." no such provlso/condlLlon,
however, can be found ln SecLlon 7 of Lhe sub[ecL clrcular.
lf Lhe lnLenL of ueparLmenL Clrcular no. 70 were Lo glve Lhe
SecreLary of !usLlce a dlscreLlonary power Lo dlsmlss or Lo
enLerLaln a peLlLlon for revlew desplLe lLs belng ouLrlghLly
dlsmlsslble, Lhe resulL would noL only be lncongruous buL also
lrraLlonal and even un[usL. lor Lhen, Lhe acLlon of Lhe SecreLary
of !usLlce of glvlng due course Lo Lhe peLlLlon would serve no
purpose and would only allow a greaL wasLe of Llme.

N88?O 4 ! WheLher or noL SecLlon 7 of uC! Clrcular no. 70 applles only
Lo appeals from orlglnal resoluLlon of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor and does noL
apply ln Lhe lnsLanL case where an appeal ls lnLerposed by peLlLloner
from Lhe 8esoluLlon of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor denylng her moLlon for
relnvesLlgaLlon. ! nC.

Q6R<# S<N%B '@ "When Lhe law does noL dlsLlngulsh, we musL noL
dlsLlngulsh"
A readlng of SecLlon 7 dlscloses LhaL Lhere ls no quallflcaLlon
glven by Lhe same provlslon Lo llmlL lLs appllcaLlon Lo appeals

S
EXCERPT CITEB BY TBE PETITI0NER FR0N AuPAL0'S STAT0T0RY C0NSTR0CTI0N:
Foi instance, the woiu "shall" in Section 2 of Republic Act Su4 which states that "banks oi
othei financial institutions owneu oi contiolleu by the uoveinment shall, subject to availability
of funus xxx, accept at a uiscount at not moie than two pei centum foi ten yeais such
(backpay) ceitificate" implies not a manuatoiy, but a uiscietionaiy, meaning because of the
phiase "subject to availability of funus." Similaily, the woiu "shall" in the piovision to the effect
that a coipoiation violating the coipoiation law "shall, upon such violation being pioveu, be
uissolveu by quo waiianto pioceeuings" has been constiueu as "may."
from orlglnal resoluLlons and noL Lo resoluLlons on
relnvesLlgaLlon.

Q6R<# S<N%B 4@ 1he seLLled rule ls LhaL when an accused pleads Lo Lhe
charge, he ls deemed Lo have walved Lhe rlghL Lo prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon and Lhe rlghL Lo quesLlon any lrregularlLy LhaL surrounds lL.
1hls precepL ls also appllcable ln cases of relnvesLlgaLlon as well
as ln cases of revlew of such relnvesLlgaLlon.
o When peLlLloner uncondlLlonally pleaded Lo Lhe charge,
she walved Lhe relnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe case by Lhe
prosecuLor as well as Lhe rlghL Lo appeal Lhe resulL
Lhereof Lo Lhe uC! SecreLary. WlLh Lhe arralgnmenL of
Lhe peLlLloner, Lhe uC! SecreLary can no longer
enLerLaln Lhe appeal or peLlLlon for revlew because
peLlLloner had already walved or abandoned Lhe same.
8ecause of Lhls, whlle Lhere ls auLhorlLy permlLLlng L he CourL Lo
make lLs own deLermlnaLlon of probable cause, such cannoL be
made appllcable ln Lhe lnsLanL case.
o eLlLloner's walver, by pleadlng Lo Lhe charge, ls
LanLamounL Lo a flndlng of probable cause. lor Lhls
reason, Lhere ls no need for Lhe CourL Lo deLermlne Lhe
exlsLence or non-exlsLence of probable cause.

N88?O T ! WheLher or noL eLlLloner's arralgnmenL was null and vold
for allegedly belng lmprovldenLly conducLed ! nC. 8ecords reveal LhaL
peLlLloner's arralgnmenL was wlLhouL any resLrlcLlon, condlLlon or
reservaLlon. ln facL she was asslsLed by her counsels ALLy. ArLhur
AbudlenLe and ALLy. Magllnao when she pleaded Lo Lhe charge.

+N%6; PO#7N=B@ lL musL be sLressed LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe
case preclsely because of Lhe 8esoluLlons of Lhe uC! afLer lL had, ln
grave abuse of lLs dlscreLlon, Look cognlzance of Lhe peLlLlon for revlew
flled by peLlLloner. Pavlng been rendered ln grave abuse of lLs
dlscreLlon, Lhe 8esoluLlons of Lhe uC! are vold. As Lhe order of dlsmlssal
of Lhe Lrlal courL was made pursuanL Lo Lhe vold 8esoluLlons of Lhe uC!,
CRININAL PR0CEB0RE BIuESTS (2u1S - 2u14) ATTY. TRANQ0IL SALvAB0R


RACBELLE ANNE u0TIERREZ
sald order was llkewlse vold. 1he rule ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon ls LhaL a vold
[udgmenL ls a compleLe nulllLy and wlLhouL legal effecL, and LhaL all
proceedlngs or acLlons founded Lhereon are Lhemselves regarded as
lnvalld and lneffecLlve for any purpose.

%< 8OS6#6BO <SN%N<%8