472 Phil. 925
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
That on or about 8:30 o’clock in the morning of April 26, 2001, in Barangay Dumaguit, Municipality of New Washington, Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, with treachery and use of superior strength, with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one RAYMUNDO RODRIGUEZ, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death. Xeroxed copy of the Post-Mortem Examination is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part of this information.The Provincial Prosecutor recommended no bail in this case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6002.
By reason of the unlawful acts of the accused, the family of the victim suffered P100,000.00 actual damages.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
There is an urgent need for the issuance of Warrant of Arrest against the accused as the lives of some people are in danger considering that the motive is political and with the election day on May 14, 2001, there is an urgent need to protect the public from anymore bloodshed and as wrongly or intentionally design by the accused, if the motive is infidelity, to protect the life of her wife, Noli Marie Salazar, who is residing on the same address in Dumaguit, New Washington, Aklan.[3]On May 12, 2001, Executive Judge Sheila Martelino-Cortes issued an Order granting the motion.[4] On the same day, the trial court issued a warrant for the petitioner’s arrest.[5] However, the petitioner was nowhere to be found, and as such, the police officers failed to serve the warrant on him. The case was later raffled to Branch 2 of the court, presided by Judge Tomas R. Romaquin.
... He further submits that this motion is in consonance with his constitutional presumption of innocence and will not prejudice anyone. Accused is a person of good moral standing, a member of the bar and an officer of the court, a noted businessman, and had served the Philippine government until April 2001, as President of the Food Terminal, Inc. He is innocent of the charges in this case and has no intention whatsoever to avoid the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court and the proceedings in this case.[7]The provincial prosecutor opposed the motion, contending that the filing of a petition for review of the investigating prosecutor’s resolution in the Office of the Secretary of Justice was not a justification for the suspension of the enforcement of the warrant of arrest issued by the court. The petitioner, the Provincial Prosecutor averred, cannot rely on the ruling in Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals[8] because the facts therein are different from those in the case before the court. Moreover, the Provincial Prosecutor averred, the petitioner had not yet been arrested; hence, the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over his person. The prosecution asserted that the petitioner’s filing of a motion for the lifting of the warrant of arrest against him did not constitute a voluntary appearance before the court.
4. Finally, the Honorable Executive Judge is related within the fifth degree of consanguinity to Vivien Y. Bontogon-Rodriguez, wife of the deceased, Raymundo Rodriguez. Vivien is the daughter of her first cousin Angela Yap-Bontogon, and therefore, a niece of the Honorable Executive Judge. In view of this relationship, the Honorable Executive Judge is disqualified to sit in any case or in any proceedings involving the death of Raymundo Rodriguez. She should have refused to act on Prosecutor Mayor’s motion for issuance of the warrants of arrest.[9]The provincial prosecutor disagreed with the petitioner and averred in his reply to the supplement to the petition that the petitioner failed to prove the relationship of the Executive Judge to the wife of the deceased. He asserted that the matter of the inhibition of the judge should have been addressed to her, and that even with her disqualification, the warrant of arrest and the order she issued were valid.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH SECTION 1 OF RULE 6, AND SECTION 4 OF RULE 46, OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS WELL AS SECTION 35(1), CHAPTER 12, TITLE III OF BOOK IV OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT IGNORED THE IMPORTANT AND SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER, AND REFUSED TO SET ASIDE ITS DISMISSAL OF THE “PETITION FOR CERTIORARI” PETITIONER FILED EVEN AFTER IT FOUND THAT A COPY OF THAT SERVICE OF THE “PETITION FOR CERTIORARI” HAD BEEN MADE UPON THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR WHO HAD REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PETITION.[10]The petitioner avers that the exclusive authority of the Solicitor General to represent the People of the Philippines in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code, comes into being only when the appellate court has already acquired jurisdiction over the case which, in turn, takes place only upon the service on the State of the order or resolution of the appellate court indicating its initial action on the petition, or by the respondent’s voluntary submission to such jurisdiction as provided for in Rule 46, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which reads:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction over the person of respondent, how acquired.— The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.Before then, the petitioner submits, service of a copy of his petition on the respondent People of the Philippines may be effected through the Provincial Prosecutor who appeared as its counsel in the trial court, conformably to Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.— All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.The pleadings of the accused and copies of the orders or resolutions of the trial court are served on the People of the Philippines through the Provincial Prosecutor. However, in appeals before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court either (a) by writ of error; (b) via petition for review; (c) on automatic appeal; or, (d) in special civil actions where the People of the Philippines is a party, the general rule is that the Office of the Solicitor General is the sole representative of the People of the Philippines. This is provided for in Section 35 (1) Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, viz:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.A copy of the petition in such action must be served on the People of the Philippines as mandated by Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, through the Office of the Solicitor General.[11] The service of a copy of the petition on the People of the Philippines, through the Provincial Prosecutor would be inefficacious. The petitioner’s failure to have a copy of his petition served on the respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition as provided in the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Unless and until copies of the petition are duly served on the respondent, the appellate court has no other recourse but to dismiss the petition.