TodayisThursday,February18,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.182651August25,2010
HEIRSOFJANEHONRALES,Petitioners,
vs.
JONATHANHONRALES,Respondent.
xx
G.R.No.182657
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESandHEIRSOFJANEHONRALES,Petitioners,
vs.
JONATHANHONRALES,Respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
Before this Court are petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended,assailingtheOctober1,2007Decision1andApril3,2008Resolution2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)in
CAG.R.SPNo.92755.
Theantecedentsareasfollows:
OnAugust19,2002,JaneHonraleswasfatallyshotbyherhusband,respondentJonathanHonrales.Thus,ina
Resolution3 dated October 28, 2002, Bernardino R. Camba, Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila, recommended
the filing of an information for parricide against respondent. On November 18, 2002, the following Information4
wasfiledagainstrespondentwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila:
ThatonoraboutAugust19,2002,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused,withintenttokill,didthen
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one JANE
HONRALESyILAGAN,hislegalwife,bythenandthereshootingherwitha45cal.pistol,therebyinflictingupon
the latter a gunshot wound of the head and neck which was the direct and immediate cause of her death
thereafter.
Contrarytolaw.
OnNovember21,2002,JudgeTeresaP.SoriasooftheRTCofManila,Branch27,orderedrespondentsarrest.5
On November 22, 2002, respondent moved to reconsider6 the October 28, 2002 Resolution of Assistant City
ProsecutorCambawhichrecommendedthefilingofparricidecharges.Respondentlateralsofiledasupplement
tohismotion.
Inviewofrespondentsmotionforreconsideration,2ndAssistantCityProsecutorAlfredoE.Ednavemovedthat
the RTC defer proceedings.7 Respondent in turn filed an Urgent ExParte Motion to Recall Warrant of Arrest,8
whichthepublicprosecutoropposed.9
On December 12, 2002, the RTC issued an Order10 deferring proceedings in view of the pendency of
respondents motion for reconsideration. It, however, denied the motion to recall the arrest warrant since
defermentofproceedingsdoesnotimpairthevalidityoftheinformationorotherwiserenderthesamedefective.
Neitherdoesitaffectthejurisdictionofthecourtovertheoffenseaswouldconstituteagroundforquashingthe
information. The trial court further held that considering the evidence submitted, it finds probable cause for the

issuanceofthearrestwarrant.
On May 21, 2003, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Laura D. BiglangAwa filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct
Reinvestigation11 with the RTC in light of the affidavit of one (1) Michelle C. Luna, which respondent, in his
motion/supplementalmotionforreconsideration,argues"willbeliethestatementofwitnessforthecomplainant,
JohnJamesHonralesthattheshootingofthevictim...wasintentional."
OnMay30,2003,theRTCissuedanOrder12grantingleavetoconductthereinvestigationandauthorizing2nd
AssistantCityProsecutorBiglangAwatoreinvestigatethecase.
OnSeptember9,2003,theheirsofthevictim(petitionerheirs)movedbeforetheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorof
Manilafortheinhibition13of2ndAssistantCityProsecutorBiglangAwafromconductingthereinvestigationand
prayingthatthecaseberemandedtothecourtfortrial.14
OnSeptember25,2003,CityProsecutorRamonR.GarciaissuedOfficeOrderNo.164015reassigningthecase
toAssistantCityProsecutorAntonioR.Rebagay.HearingswerescheduledonOctober15and22,2003.
OnOctober15,2003,bothpartiesappearedbutpetitionerheirsmanifestedthattheyearliermovedtoreconsider
OfficeOrderNo.1640.RespondentmovedthathebegivenuptoOctober22,2003tofileanopposition.
On October 22, 2003, respondent filed his opposition. Counsel for petitioner heirs then manifested that they be
givenuntilNovember5,2003tosubmitareplythereto.
On November 17, 2003, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay issued an Order16 denying petitioners motion to
reconsiderOfficeOrderNo.1640andsetthecontinuationofthehearingsonDecember3and10,2003.
On December 3, 2003, both parties appeared. Petitioner heirs moved that the hearing be suspended on the
ground that they have filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) to assail the Order of
November17,2003.RespondentscounselobjectedinviewofthepresenceoftheirwitnessMichelleLuna.Thus,
thehearingproceeded.Afterthehearing,petitionerheirsmovedforthecancellationoftheDecember10,2003
hearingandfiledaformalmotiontothateffect.
On December 15, 2003, respondent filed a Motion and Manifestation praying that the case be submitted for
resolutionor,inthealternative,thatitbesetforfinalclarificatoryhearingonDecember22,2003.
The following day or on December 16, 2003, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay issued an Order denying the
prayersforsuspensionandsubmissionofthecaseforresolutionandinsteadsetthehearingonDecember22,
2003.
On December 19, 2003, however, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay issued a Resolution17 setting aside the
October28,2002Resolutionandrecommendingthewithdrawaloftheinformationforparricideandthefilingofan
information for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide in its stead. City Prosecutor Garcia approved the
Resolution.
OnJanuary16,2004,AssistantCityProsecutorRebagayfiledwiththeRTCamotiontowithdrawtheinformation
forparricide.18
OnJanuary28,2004,whiletheMotiontoWithdrawInformationwasstillpending,anInformation19forReckless
Imprudence resulting in Parricide was filed against respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Manila.TheInformationreads,
ThatonoraboutAugust19,2002,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused,beingtheninpossessionof
a45cal.pistol,didthenandthereunlawfullyandfeloniously,afterremovingthebulletsoftheguninacareless,
reckless,negligentandimprudentmannerplayfullypokedtheguntohismaid,sonandtohiswife,bythenand
thereaccidentallyshootingupononeJANEHONRALES,hislegalwife,inflictinguponthelatteragunshotwound
oftheheadandtheneckwhichwasthedirectandimmediatecauseofherdeaththereafter.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Determinedtohaverespondentprosecutedforparricide,petitionerheirsfiledapetitionforreview20withtheDOJ
questioning the downgrading of the offense. They likewise filed an Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
Information21 with the RTC arguing that there was no final resolution yet downgrading the charge against
respondentthatwouldjustifywithdrawaloftheInformationforparricide.
OnFebruary17,2004,petitionerheirsfiledanUrgentExParteMotiontoDeferProceedings22withtheRTCto
givetimetotheDOJSecretarytoresolvetheirpetitionforreview.

On March 17, 2004, the DOJ, through Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuo, dismissed the petitions for
reviewassailing(1)theOrderdatedNovember17,2003ofAssistantCityProsecutorRebagaydenyingtheurgent
motion to reconsider Office Order No. 1640 and (2) the Resolution dated December 19, 2003 finding probable
cause against respondent for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide, instead of intentional parricide as
charged.23
Petitioner heirs moved to reconsider24 the Resolution, and the RTC of Manila issued an Order25 on April 14,
2004,holdinginabeyancetheresolutionofthependingincidentsintheparricidecaseinviewofthesaidmotion
forreconsideration.
On May 14, 2004, the DOJ, through Chief State Prosecutor Zuo, denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration.26Thus,JudgeSoriasooftheRTCofManilaissuedanOrder27onMay28,2004consideringthe
motiontowithdrawtheInformationsubmittedforresolution.
Undauntedbythedenialoftheirmotionforreconsideration,however,petitionersagainfiledapetitionforreview28
with the DOJ on June 14, 2004, assailing said denial. Said petition, however, was dismissed with finality by the
DOJinaResolution29datedJuly14,2004.
ContendingthatthepetitionforreviewbeforetheDOJquestioningthedowngradingoftheoffensewasnolonger
animpedimenttotheresolutionofthependingMotiontoWithdrawInformation,respondentpromptlyfiledwiththe
RTCaManifestationwithReiterationtoResolvetheMotiontoWithdrawInformation.30
OnAugust5,2004,petitionerheirsappealed31thedismissaloftheirpetitionstotheOfficeofthePresident(OP).
Thus,onAugust6,2004,JudgeSoriasoreiteratedherpreviousrulingtoholdinabeyancetheresolutionofthe
motiontowithdrawindeferencetotheappealtakingitscoursebeforetheOP.32
In the meantime, on October 11, 2004, respondent was arraigned before the MeTC and pleaded guilty to the
chargeofrecklessimprudenceresultinginparricide.Hewasaccordinglysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofone
(1)year,seven(7)monthsandeleven(11)daystotwo(2)years,ten(10)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofprision
correccional.33
OnOctober27,2004,respondentfiledwiththeRTCamotion34seekingtodismisstheparricidechargesagainst
him.HecitedhisarraignmentandconvictionbytheMeTCasgroundsforthedismissalofthecaseagainsthim.
OnOctober28,2004,petitionerheirsfiledwiththeMeTCamotion35tonullifytheproceedingsheldonOctober
11, 2004. They claimed that they were denied procedural due process since October 11, 2004 was not the
agreeddateforrespondentsarraignmentbutOctober18,2004.TheyalsoarguedthattheInformationbeforethe
MeTCwasinvalid.
On December 6, 2004, the OP dismissed petitioner heirs appeal of the DOJ Resolution.36 Petitioner heirs
promptly moved to reconsider the OPs dismissal of their appeal, but their motion was denied by Resolution37
datedApril20,2005.
OnMay5,2005,respondentmovedforJudgeSoriasosinhibition38allegingbiasinfavoroftheprosecutionas
shownbyhercontinuedinactiononhismotiontowithdrawInformation.
OnJune6,2005,petitionerheirsfiledbeforetheCAanappealbycertiorari39underRule43ofthe1997Rulesof
CivilProcedure,asamended,assailingthedenialbytheOPoftheirmotionforreconsideration.
On June 30, 2005, Judge Soriaso inhibited herself from the case.40 The case was eventually reraffled off to
Branch54presidedoverbyJudgeManuelM.Barrios.
Shortly thereafter, Judge Barrios issued an Order41 on September 26, 2005 granting the withdrawal of the
Informationforparricideandrecallingthewarrantofarrestissuedagainstrespondent.JudgeBarriosruledthat
theInformationforparricidefounditselfwithoutasupportingresolutionandthusitswithdrawalwasappropriate.
OnOctober14,2005,petitionerheirsfiledamotionforreconsideration42oftheSeptember26,2005Orderbut
theirmotionwasnotedwithoutactiononNovember3,2005,asitwasmadewithouttheapprovalorintervention
ofthePublicProsecutor.43
OnJanuary9,2006,petitionerheirsfiledapetitionforcertiorari44withtheCAassailingtheSeptember26,2005
and November 3, 2005 Orders issued by the RTC through Judge Barrios. Petitioner heirs argued that Judge
Barrios granted the motion to withdraw the Information for parricide on grounds other than his personal and
independentfindings.TheylikewisecontendedthatJudgeBarriosshouldnothavegrantedthewithdrawalofthe

InformationandrecallofthearrestwarrantsinceheknewthattheirappealwiththeCAdisputingthedowngrading
of the offense was still pending. Petitioner heirs further argued that the adoption of a contrary stand by the
prosecutorafterthefilingoftheInformationforparricideshouldnotbarthemfromprosecutingthecaseactively
sanssupervisionandinterventionoftheprosecutor.
On August 16, 2006, petitioner heirs filed a Motion to Implead the People of the Philippines as party
respondent.45OnAugust31,2006,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)filedasimilarmotion46andfurther
prayedthatitbefurnishedacopyofthepetitionandbegiventimetofileitscomment.OnOctober10,2006,the
CAgrantedthemotions.47
On October 1, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari. Though it found that Judge Barrios failed to
makeanindependentassessmentofthemeritsofthecaseandthusabdicatedhisjudicialpowerandactedasa
meresurrogateoftheSecretaryofJustice,itruledthattheremandofthecasetotheRTCwouldservenouseful
purposesinceitmayresultinthereopeningoftheparricidecasewhichwouldviolaterespondentsconstitutional
rightagainstdoublejeopardy.
1 w p h i1

Petitioner heirs and the OSG moved to reconsider the CA decision, but their motions were denied on April 3,
2008. Hence, they filed the present consolidated petitions raising the sole issue of whether the remand of the
parricidecasetothetrialcourtwillviolaterespondentsconstitutionalrightagainstdoublejeopardy.
Petitioner heirs argue that the MeTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the case for parricide through
reckless imprudence and that jurisdiction remained with the RTC where the Information for parricide was filed.
They also assail the filing with the MeTC of the Information for the downgraded offense after a supposedly
dubiousreinvestigationandquestionthehastyarraignmentofaccusedwhichwasdoneallegedlywithoutnoticeto
petitionerheirsandwithoutthembeingfurnishedwiththeresultofthereinvestigation.Theyevenclaimthatthey
were not furnished with a copy of the motion for leave to conduct reinvestigation as it was sent to the wrong
address.Petitionerheirsfurtherarguethatwhenrespondentimmediatelypleadedguiltytothechargeforreckless
imprudence without notice to them, such a plea cannot be legally invoked in respondents defense of double
jeopardy.Also,theInformationforparricidewasstillpendingwiththeRTCwhenaccusedwashastilyarraigned
forthedowngradedoffense.Thus,notallrequisitesofdoublejeopardyarepresent.
The OSG, for its part, argues that the MeTC could not have validly acquired jurisdiction over the case for the
same offense of parricide or any offense necessarily included therein because the prosecutions motion to
withdrawtheInformationforparricidebeforetheRTCremainedunacteduponbythesaidcourt.
Respondent,ontheotherhand,maintainsthatifthepetitionisgranted,itwouldviolatehisrightagainstdouble
jeopardy. The first jeopardy has already attached because there was a valid indictment, arraignment and plea
andtheproceedingswerealreadyterminatedasheisalreadyservingsentenceandhasappliedforprobation.He
alsocontendsthatproceedingwithreinvestigationwasjustifiedsincetheprincipalactioncancontinueifthereis
noorderfromtheappellatecourttostoptheproceedings.Hefurtherarguesthatpetitionerheirshavenorightto
filethisappealespeciallysincetheappealwasfiledbypetitionerheirswithoutthepublicprosecutorsconformity.
Respondent likewise contends that it is already too late for petitioner heirs to question the validity of the MeTC
proceedingssinceitsdecisionhasbecomefinalandexecutory,noappealhavingbeentakenfromthedecision.
Also, petitioner heirs failed to present evidence to prove that there was fraud in the reinvestigation and
subsequentpleatoalesseroffense.
Wegrantthepetitions.
ItisbeyondcavilthattheRTCactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretioningrantingthewithdrawaloftheInformation
forparricideandrecallingthewarrantofarrestwithoutmakinganindependentassessmentofthemeritsofthe
case and the evidence on record.48 By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor that it is
abiding by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to
performapositivedutyenjoinedbylaw.Whatremainsforourresolutioniswhetherthecasemayberemandedto
theRTCwithoutviolatingrespondentsrightagainstdoublejeopardy.Onthisquestion,wefindtheanswertobe
intheaffirmative.
Section7,Rule117oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,asamendedprovides:
SEC.7.Formerconvictionoracquittaldoublejeopardy.Whenanaccusedhasbeenconvictedoracquitted,or
the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to
sustainaconvictionandaftertheaccusedhadpleadedtothecharge,theconvictionoracquittaloftheaccusedor
the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to
committhesameorfrustrationthereof,orforanyoffensewhichnecessarilyincludesorisnecessarilyincludedin
theoffensechargedintheformercomplaintorinformation.
xxxx

Thus,doublejeopardyexistswhenthefollowingrequisitesarepresent:(1)afirstjeopardyattachedpriortothe
second(2)thefirstjeopardyhasbeenvalidlyterminatedand(3)asecondjeopardyisforthesameoffenseasin
the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment (b) before a competent court (c) after
arraignment(d)whenavalidpleahasbeenenteredand(e)whentheaccusedhasbeenacquittedorconvicted,
orthecasedismissedorotherwiseterminatedwithouthisexpressconsent.49
Inthiscase,theMeTCtookcognizanceoftheInformationforrecklessimprudenceresultinginparricidewhilethe
criminal case for parricide was still pending before the RTC. In Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr.,50 we held that once
jurisdictionisacquiredbythecourtinwhichtheInformationisfiled,itisthereretained.Therefore,astheoffense
ofrecklessimprudenceresultinginparricidewasincludedinthechargeforintentionalparricide51pendingbefore
the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having retained
jurisdictionovertheoffensetotheexclusionofallothercourts.Therequisitethatthejudgmentberenderedbya
courtofcompetentjurisdictionisthereforeabsent.
A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become
executory.52
WHEREFORE, the present petitions are GRANTED. The Decision dated October 1, 2007 and Resolution dated
April 3, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 92755 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, the September 26, 2005 and November 3, 2005 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch54areherebyNULLIFIEDandsaidtrialcourtisherebyDIRECTEDtoREINSTATECriminalCaseNo.02
207976forparricideforappropriatecriminalproceedings.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ *
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify
thattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
* Designated additional member per Raffle of March 8, 2010 in view of the recusal of Associate Justice

LucasP.BersaminfromthecaseduetoprioractionintheCourtofAppeals.

1Rollo(G.R.No.182651),pp.2734.PennedbyAssociateJusticeEstelaPerlasBernabewithAssociate

JusticesPortiaAlioHormachuelosandLucasP.Bersamin(nowamemberofthisCourt)concurring.
2Id.at35.
3Records,Vol.1,pp.35.
4Id.at12.DocketedasCriminalCaseNo.02207976.
5Id.at58.
6Id.at6874.
7Id.at65.
8Id.at6667.
9Id.at83.
10Id.at8485.
11Id.at102103.
12Id.at112.
13Id.at116122.
14Id.at121.
15Id.at147.
16Id.at190.
17Id.at224228.
18Id.at229.
19Id.at302.
20Id.at306320.
21Id.at235241.
22Id.at344345.
23Id.at369370.
24Id.at371378.
25Id.at426427.
26Id.at435.
27Id.at443.
28Id.at446452.
29Id.at495496.
30Id.at493494.
31Id.at504511.
32Id.at548.

33Id.at576.
34Id.at573575.
35Id.at620629.
36Records,Vol.2,pp.45.
37Id.at3637.
38Id.at1720.
39CArollo,pp.6379.
40Records,Vol.2,p.63.
41Id.at9398.
42Id.at104107.
43Id.at108.
44CArollo,pp.215.
45Id.at206208.
46Id.at210213.
47Id.at216217.
48SeeSantosv.Orda,Jr.,G.R.No.158236,September1,2004,437SCRA504,515Ledesmav.Court

ofAppeals,G.R.No.113216,September5,1997,278SCRA656,682.
49Peoplev.Nazareno,G.R.No.168982,August5,2009,595SCRA438,449Peoplev.Tampal,G.R.No.

102485,May22,1995,244SCRA202,208.
50Nos.L38579&L39951,September9,1982,116SCRA451,456.
51 See Magno v. People, G.R. No. 149725, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 246, 258, citing People v. De

Fernando, 49 Phil. 75 (1926) People v. Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 267
Samsonv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,103Phil.277(1958).
52MunicipalityofAntipolov.Zapanta,No.L65334,December26,1984,133SCRA820,825.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation