TL DR The Proceedings For The Case of Atty. Jesus Sibya JR., Who Was Shot Death, Was

Serag v.
Court of appeals
473 SCRA 590
TL;DR The proceedings for the case of Atty. Jesus Sibya Jr., who was shot death, was
suspended, pending the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Later, the Secretary of Justice
issued a resolution downgrading the charges from Murder to Homicide, and from Attempted
Murder to Attempted Homicide. The RTC verbally granted the motion of the Provincial
Prosecutor, and admitted the Second Amended Information for Homicide and found the
accused guilty. The Supreme Court held that the trial court should not have admitted the
amended informations considering the pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is enough
reason for the deferment of any proceedings in the trial court.
Petitioner, through the private prosecutors, correctly moved for the deferment of the
admission of the second amended informations for homicide and attempted homicide. It
should be considered that the motion to defer was even with the conformity of the public
prosecutor and the appearance of the private prosecutors is pursuant to Section 16, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court.
Facts:
In the wee hours of May 11, 2001, Atty. Jesus Sibya, Jr., a mayoralty candidate in
San Joaquin, Iloilo during the 2001 elections, was shot to death in front of his residence. His
driver, Norberto Salamat III, was also wounded. The Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group in Iloilo City filed a criminal complaint for murder and attempted murder against Lino
Napao, then incumbent mayor of San Joaquin, and Sebastian Serag for the murder of Atty.
Jesus Sibya Jr.
In a Joint Resolution dated May 26, 2001, the Provincial Prosecutor filed two
Informations with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimbal, Iloilo: (1) for Murder with the
Use of Unlicensed Firearms, and (2) Attempted Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms
against Serag and Napao and seven unidentified persons.
Accused Juan Napao and the 14 other additional accused filed on August 16, 2002, a
petition for review of the July 26, 2001 Joint Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor before
the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The trial court found probable cause for murder and attempted murder against the
accused. Consequently, the court issued an Order on September 27, 2001, for the issuance
of warrants for the arrest of the accused who were still at large.
Pending the resolution by the Secretary of Justice of the said petition for review, the
proceedings were suspended.
The Secretary of Justice had issued Resolution No. 258 affirming with modification,
the Joint Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor, downgrading the charges from Murder to
Homicide, and from Attempted Murder to Attempted Homicide.
The Provincial Prosecutor was likewise ordered to amend the Amended Informations
accordingly. Amended Information for homicide and attempted homicide in the two cases,
and for the court to admit the said second Amended Informations.
However, the RTC verbally granted the motion of the Provincial Prosecutor, and
admitted the Second Amended Information for Homicide. The court forthwith arraigned the
accused for homicide, who pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. On November 22, 2002,
the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the RTC from proceeding with
Criminal Case Nos. 925 and 926.
In the meantime, the Secretary of Justice issued a Resolution on November 18,

2002, granting the motion for reconsideration of the private complainant, setting aside
Resolution No. 258.
Issue: Whether he RTC acted with inordinate and precipitate haste when it granted the
Provincial Prosecutors motion for the admission of the Second Amended Information for
homicide?
Ruling: YES. As the appellate court correctly pointed out in its November 10, 2003
Resolution:
Public respondent also erroneously found that the pendency of the motion for
reconsideration, and the other reasons given, not compelling for the court to defer its action
on the motion to admit. Public respondent also questioned the personality of the petitioner,
as the private offended party, in actively participating in the criminal prosecution.
As earlier stated, Department Circular No. 70 places the duty upon the appellant and
the trial prosecutor to see to it that, pending resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in
court are held in abeyance.
Therefore, the pendency of an appeal before the DOJ is enough reason for the
deferment of any proceedings in the trial court and petitioner, through the private
prosecutors, correctly moved for the deferment of the admission of the second amended
informations for homicide and attempted homicide.
It should be considered that the motion to defer was even with the conformity of the
public prosecutor and the appearance of the private prosecutors is pursuant to Section 16,
Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. 'Where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the
offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
All these facts taken together, there appears to be an undue haste on the part of the
public respondent in admitting the second amended informations for homicide and
attempted homicide and ordering the arraignment of the private respondents to the said
informations. This is considering that no word of protestation was heard from the petitioner
when she waited for nine (9) months for the DOJ to resolve the private respondents'
Petition for Review.

TL DR The Proceedings For The Case of Atty. Jesus Sibya JR., Who Was Shot Death, Was

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TL DR The Proceedings For The Case of Atty. Jesus Sibya JR., Who Was Shot Death, Was

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TL DR The Proceedings For The Case of Atty. Jesus Sibya JR., Who Was Shot Death, Was

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serag v.

473 SCRA 590

In the meantime, the Secretary of Justice issued a Resolution on November 18,

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.