AI-generated
Updated 24th February 2025
Adasa vs. Abalos
This case involves a Petition for Review filed by Bernadette L. Adasa seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' decision, which reversed the Department of Justice (DOJ) resolutions that had dismissed the estafa charges against her. The Court of Appeals ruled that the DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review since she had already been arraigned, and the trial court's dismissal of the case was void as it relied solely on the DOJ's resolutions.

Primary Holding

The Supreme Court denied Adasa's petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review after her arraignment, as it violated DOJ Circular No. 70. The trial court's dismissal of the case was also void as it was based on the DOJ's void resolutions.

Background

The case originated from two complaints filed by Cecille S. Abalos against Bernadette L. Adasa for estafa, alleging that Adasa encashed two checks without her consent. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City found probable cause and filed criminal cases against Adasa. Adasa sought reinvestigation, and the DOJ later reversed the prosecutor's resolution, leading to the withdrawal of the charges. The trial court dismissed the case based on the DOJ's resolution, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Adasa to file a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

History

  • January 18, 2001: Cecille S. Abalos files complaints against Bernadette L. Adasa for estafa.

  • March 23, 2001: Adasa files a counter-affidavit admitting to encashing the checks but later recants, blaming a third party.

  • April 25, 2001: The Office of the City Prosecutor finds probable cause and files criminal cases against Adasa.

  • June 8, 2001: The trial court orders reinvestigation.

  • August 30, 2001: The City Prosecutor reaffirms probable cause.

  • October 1, 2001: Adasa is arraigned and pleads not guilty.

  • October 15, 2001: Adasa files a Petition for Review with the DOJ.

  • July 11, 2002: The DOJ reverses the City Prosecutor's resolution and orders the withdrawal of the charges.

  • July 25, 2002: The City Prosecutor files a Motion to Withdraw Information.

  • July 26, 2002: Abalos files a Motion for Reconsideration with the DOJ.

  • January 30, 2003: The DOJ denies Abalos' Motion for Reconsideration.

  • February 27, 2003: The trial court dismisses the case based on the DOJ's resolution.

  • July 21, 2004: The Court of Appeals reverses the DOJ's resolutions and the trial court's dismissal.

  • June 10, 2005: The Court of Appeals denies Adasa's Motion for Reconsideration.

  • February 19, 2007: The Supreme Court denies Adasa's Petition for Review.

Facts

  • 1. Adasa was accused of estafa for encashing two checks without Abalos' consent.
  • 2. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed criminal cases against Adasa.
  • 3. Adasa sought reinvestigation, and the DOJ reversed the City Prosecutor's resolution, leading to the withdrawal of the charges.
  • 4. The trial court dismissed the case based on the DOJ's resolution.
  • 5. The Court of Appeals reversed the DOJ's resolutions and the trial court's dismissal, prompting Adasa to file a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. The DOJ can entertain a petition for review even after arraignment.
  • 2. The trial court's dismissal of the case rendered the petition moot and academic.
  • 3. Her arraignment was null and void as it was conducted despite her protestations.
  • 4. The DOJ's interpretation of DOJ Circular No. 70 violated statutory construction rules.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. The DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review after her arraignment.
  • 2. The trial court's dismissal of the case was void as it relied solely on the DOJ's resolutions.
  • 3. Adasa's arraignment waived her right to reinvestigation and appeal.

Issues

  • 1. Whether the DOJ gravely abused its discretion in entertaining Adasa's petition for review after her arraignment.
  • 2. Whether the trial court's dismissal of the case rendered the petition moot and academic.
  • 3. Whether Adasa's arraignment was null and void.
  • 4. Whether the DOJ's interpretation of DOJ Circular No. 70 violated statutory construction rules.

Ruling

  • 1. The Supreme Court denied Adasa's petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
  • 2. The DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review after her arraignment, as it violated DOJ Circular No. 70.
  • 3. The trial court's dismissal of the case was void as it was based on the DOJ's void resolutions.
  • 4. Adasa's arraignment was valid, and she waived her right to reinvestigation and appeal by pleading not guilty.

Doctrines

  • 1. Waiver of Rights: An accused who pleads to the charge waives the right to preliminary investigation and any irregularities surrounding it.
  • 2. Mandatory Language in Statutes: The word "shall" in DOJ Circular No. 70 is mandatory, not permissive.
  • 3. Void Judgments: A judgment rendered in grave abuse of discretion is void and without legal effect.

Key Excerpts

  • 1. "When an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it."
  • 2. "The word 'shall' in Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70 is mandatory, not permissive."

Precedents Cited

  • 1. Crespo v. Mogul: The Court held that once a complaint is filed in court, the disposition of the case rests in the court's discretion. However, this case did not address the issue of appeals after arraignment.
  • 2. Roberts v. Court of Appeals: The Court reiterated that the DOJ can entertain appeals, but this case also did not address appeals after arraignment.
  • 3. Marcelo v. Court of Appeals: The Court affirmed the DOJ's authority to review resolutions but did not address appeals after arraignment.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 7: Mandates that the DOJ shall not give due course to a petition for review if the accused has already been arraigned.
  • 2. DOJ Circular No. 70, Section 12: Lists grounds for dismissing a petition for review, including arraignment of the accused.