REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 4, BATANGAS CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 20237

-versus- -for-

CELESTINA GUION y PEREZ, QUALIFIED THEFT

Accused.
x--------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, the accused, by the undersigned counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of
the order of this Honorable Court dated September 30, 2015 and alleges
the following factual averments:

1. The accused received the order of the Honorable Court denying

her motion on October __, 2015 and so the filing of this motion
is well within period covered by the rules. With all due respect,
the accused begs to differ with the Order of this Honorable Court
denying her Motion for Reinvestigation. The Honorable Court
reasoned out that it lacks jurisdiction over the person of the
accused and so it has no other recourse but to deny the said
motion. Not only that, it was ruled out that the motion was also
filed prematurely;

2. We may have to re-stress the fact that the reason why the
accused filed her Motion for Re-investigation before this
Honorable Court was because the information indicting her
for qualified theft was already filed in this court. With that
being established, laws and jurisprudential rulings reasonably
dictate that the accused should now ventilate her Motion for Re-
investigation to the questioned resolution of the Honorable
Public Prosecutor before this Honorable Court. As wisely held in

1
 Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462, 471 & 472, the High Court
made the following pronouncements to wit: “ The rule therefore
in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information
is filed in Court, any disposition of the case as its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused
rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although, the
fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of
criminal cases even while the case is already in Court, he cannot
impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and
sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the Fiscal
should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or
deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after
the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after
a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice
who reviewed the records of the investigation.”

3. Since the complaint or information was already filed before this

Honorable Court, the accused was left with no option but to file
her intended Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation before
this Honorable Court. Denying her motion for reinvestigation
would surely defeat her right to move for a reconsideration
because the information was already filed in court and filing the
motion before the prosecution’s office would be a sheer futility as
jurisdiction to rule on her motion now vests exclusively before
the Honorable Court. We may have to pose these questions, “Is
the presence of the accused necessary in order for the court
to act on the aforesaid motion for reinvestigation? Does
jurisdiction over the person of the accused matters in this
case?” Again with the highest of respects, the accused begs to
differ with the viewpoint advanced by this Honorable Court. No
less than the Highest Tribunal emphatically dictates in the case
of Felix A. Velazquez vs. Tuquero and Avila, G. R. No. 88442,
February 15, 1990, that once the information is filed, the
court acquires complete jurisdiction over the case, and any
motion for reinvestigation, thereafter filed, should be

2
 addressed to the trial judge and to him alone. The
pronouncements made by the High Court are quoted to wit: “A
motion for reinvestigation should, after the court had
acquired jurisdiction over the case, be addressed to the
trial judge and to him alone. Neither the Secretary of
Justice, the State Prosecutor, nor the Fiscal may interfere
with the judge’s disposition of the case, much less impose
upon the court their opinion regarding the guilt or
innocence of the accused, for the court is the sole judge of
that. “The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the
case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused
rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal
cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose
his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge
on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the
case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion
to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not
matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the
accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or
upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
records of the investigation. “In order therefore to avoid such a
situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who
reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial
court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable,
refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the
action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has
already been filed in the Court. The matter should left entirely
for the determination of the Court.”

4. The accused in this case is not applying for bail and there is
clearly no denying that the information indicting the
accused for Qualified Theft was already filed before this
Honorable Court. Her purpose in filing a motion for
reinvestigation is precisely to question the resolution of the

3
 Honorable Public Prosecutor and moved for its reconsideration
on the grounds that she or rather her sister possesses
ownership over the questioned computer set which is the subject
matter of the Qualified Theft case. It is not necessary for the
Honorable Court to first acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the accused in order to rule on her motion. The case of
Allado vs. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 amplifies the reasoning
being advanced by the accused and the ruling on that case is
held as follows” “It is not necessary for the court to first
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to act on
a motion, such as dismissing a case or granting other relief.
The outright dismissal of the case even before the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
allowed, except in applications for bail, in which instance
the presence of the accused is mandatory.”

5. Basing from the arguments laid above, the accused sees nothing
premature in her filing of a Motion for Reinvestigation before this
Honorable Court since it is this court that has the sole authority
and jurisdiction to rule on such. The accused need not wait for
the Honorable Court to first acquire jurisdiction over her person
in order for her to promptly file a Motion for Reinvestigation
since the focal issue to resolve does not pertain to any bail
application but on the findings of the Honorable Public
Prosecutor indicting her for Qualified Theft. Denying her Motion
for Reinvestigation will set a bad precedent, is contrary to
established laws and jurisprudence and would have a defeatist
purpose since the primary aim by the accused in filing such
motion before this Honorable Court is her recognition of the sole
and exclusive jurisdiction of the court to rule on her dilemma.
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing and in the interest
of justice, it is most humbly prayed that the Honorable Court
reconsiders its Order dated September 30, 2015 and grant the motion for
reinvestigation being implored by the accused and let the case be humbly
remanded back to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office for appropriate action
on the reinvestigation being requested by the accused.

4
 The accused further prays that the Honorable Court momentarily hold
in abeyance all other proceedings that are relative to her case pending the
resolution of her motion for reconsideration before the Provincial
Prosecutor’s Office.
Other equitable measures of relief are likewise prayed for.
Ibaan for Batangas City, October 12, 2015.

By:

ATTY. FRANCISCO T. GUERRA

Counsel for the Accused
No. 371 Balagtas Street, Poblacion, Ibaan, Batangas
PTR No. 15836000/Ibaan, Batangas/11-11-14
IBP No. 976802/Pasig City/11-10-2014
ROLL OF ATTORNEY NO. 24980
MCLE Compliance No. V-0004466
Issued on November 10, 2014

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court

RTC, BRANCH 4
Batangas City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and

approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof or on
October __, 2015 at around 8:30 in the morning.

Francisco T. Guerra

Copy Furnished:

Catherine Joy S. Gayeta-Andaya

Provincial Prosecution’s Office
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Pallocan, Batangas City

Atty. Rosario Dolores V. Alday

Counsel for Complainant
2/F Maicor Building, Taysan, San Jose,
Batangas

5
6