509 Phil. 195
CARPIO, J.:
Acting on the motion to defer arraignment and to allow reinvestigation of this case filed by Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta, counsel for the accused, a copy of which was received by the public prosecutor on June 6, 2000 who manifested that he is leaving the matter to the sound discretion of the Honorable Court.For lack of a prosecutor, the trial court cancelled and re-set the hearings on 29 August 2000 and on 12 October 2000 to 27 November 2000. In the hearing of 27 November 2000, the prosecutor again failed to appear, thus the trial court issued an Order[5] re-scheduling the arraignment to 25 January 2001 after further noting that the "reinvestigation of [the] case is still pending with the Ombudsman."
The Court having found the motion to be meritorious hereby grants the same and allows the accused to seek reinvestigation and the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation and to submit its report on the outcome of the reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.
In the meantime, considering the proximity of the scheduled arraignment set on July 11, 2000 and upon motion of counsel for the accused, the arraignment set on that date is cancelled and reset to August 29, 2000 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning.[4] (Emphasis supplied)
At today's scheduled arraignment, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Vivian T. Dabu, Atty. Norbin P. Dimalanta[,] private complainant and accused appeared. Atty. Dimalanta manifested that he has a pending motion for reconsideration of the order dated April 29, 1999 of the Ombudsman denying this (sic) earlier motion for re-investigation. According to Atty. Dimalanta he has not yet received the resolution of his motion for reconsideration, hense (sic), he moved for the resetting of the arraignment. Prosecutor Dabu while interposing no objection requested that the next arraignment be intransferrable in character as the case [has] been pending since January 1, 1998.In his Complaint[7] dated 26 March 2001, complainant contended that respondent made false representations to the trial court to delay his client's arraignment in Criminal Case No. G-5132 because respondent never sought a reinvestigation of that case with the Ombudsman. Thus, complainant sought to hold respondent liable for violation of Rules 1.01, 1.03, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code") which provide:
The motion to postpone arraignment is granted and the same is reset to March 26, 2001 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Accused is directed to take the necessary steps to secure a resolution of his motion for reconsideration before the next scheduled hearing as the arraignment will proceed, with or without any resolution from the Ombudsman.[6] (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.In his Answer,[8] respondent alleged that this administrative complaint is only one of many frivolous criminal and administrative suits complainant filed to harass him for rendering legal services to a client who is the political opponent of a relative of complainant. Respondent pointed out that complainant has no interest in Criminal Case No. G-5132 since he is not a party to that case.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
As can be gleaned from the records of the instant case, respondent did lie to the trial court with respect to the pending motion for reinvestigation before the Ombudsman in Criminal Case No. G-5132.The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report in its Resolution No. XVI-2004-395 dated 30 July 2004.
There never was a pending motion. Initially, in filing the Motion to Defer Arraignment and To Allow Reinvestigation of the Case, he led the Court into believing that he intends to file the motion for reinvestigation, therefore the arraignment was reset. Five months after the first resetting [or on 27 November 2000], he represented to the trial court that he had already filed the subject motion and that it was still pending, thus the arraignment was again moved on (sic) another date.
On 25 January 2001, respondent betrayed himself in open court. He stated that his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated 29 April 1999 and that he has a pending motion for reconsideration of the same Order.
Respondent has raised his fooling of the trial court to a higher notch by so doing. It must be noted that the initial setting of the arraignment was on 6 June 2000. In his Motion to Defer Arraignment and To Allow Reinvestigation of the Case on the same date, he stated that he was surprised by the filing of the Information and the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest against the Accused and that he was not provided ample opportunity to file the motion for reinvestigation. His representation thereafter that there is [a] pending motion for reconsideration of a denied motion for reinvestigation dated 29 April 1999 is patently inconsistent with his earlier stance. How could the subject motion not yet filed on 6 June 2000 be denied on 29 April 1999? The trial court should have quickly spotted such discrepancy. But this is digressing on the issue at hand.
It turns out that there is indeed a motion for reinvestigation which was denied by the Ombudsman on 29 April 1999. However, this denial was with regard to an entirely different case.
The Resolution which led into filing the (sic) Information in Criminal Case [No.] G-5132, the case in issue, was denominated OMB-1-99-2381. The motion for reinvestigation was filed in OMB-1-98-1109, later filed as Criminal Case No. G-44[9]9. OMB-1-99-2381 was a complaint filed by complainant in the instant administrative case against Bartolome Cabrera, a Barangay Captain, for violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic [Act No.] 3019 for allegedly failing to issue a Certification to File Action in Court in a Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation proceeding pending before Cabrera's office despite the fact that all efforts for settlement have failed and there was nothing to be done but to issue the aforestated certification. On the other hand, [OMB-1-98-1109] involved the same parties but with additional respondents-spouses Manuelito Bagasina and Catalina Bagasina-charging respondents of (sic) violation of Sec. 3(e) and Sec. 4 of Republic Act [No.] 3019 for allegedly demolishing a house without authority to do the same. Clearly, even if the two cases have the same complainant and a common respondent, they cover different transactions which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be mistaken as belonging to the same case since they are based on different set of facts.[10]
1. All Petitions/Motions for Reinvestigation of cases already filed in court shall not be entertained and the same shall, instead, be addressed to the court trying the case.[14]Hence, all motions for reinvestigation must be addressed to the trial court where the case is pending. If the trial court grants reinvestigation, the Ombudsman shall proceed to receive such evidence as the parties may wish to submit to either support or controvert the prosecutor's finding of probable cause. To require the filing of another motion for reinvestigation with the Ombudsman, as the IBP seems to suggest, not only runs counter to AO 13-96 but also derogates on the trial court's exclusive prerogative to order reinvestigation.
2. Where the trial court orders/directs the conduct of reinvestigation proceedings, the same shall be undertaken by the prosecutor assigned to prosecute the case in court and shall as far as practicable, be limited to the reception and evaluation of such evidence as the accused may deem fit to present for the purpose of overturning the finding of probable cause arrived at during the inquest or preliminary investigation proceedings; without prejudice, however, to the right of the complainant/offended party to be notified of such proceedings and to submit, in appropriate cases, proof in contravention of the evidence adduced by the accused. (Emphasis supplied)
[I]n the Order granting the motion for reinvestigation, [the trial court] stated the following:Significantly, complainant does not deny respondent's claim that the Ombudsman did not notify him to submit additional evidence."The Court having found the motion to be meritorious hereby grants the same and allows the accused to seek reinvestigation and the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation and to submit its report on the outcome of the reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof." xxxThe Respondent did not anymore file a motion or whatever pleading to the Office of the Ombudsman relative to the said Reinvestigation because the aforequoted Order already directed "the office of the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation and to submit its report on the outcome of the reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof."[15]