CA-G.R.SP NO. 128262


Page 20 of page 21

                The propriety and correctness of the Summary Judgment is a proper subject of an appeal under Rule 41 as what was resorted to by Faria and Atty. Bernabe. We are also aware that public respondent’s denial of HDMF’S Motion of Reconsideration of the Summary Judgment made the case final in view of its (HDMF’S) failure to file the correct appeal under Rule 41 within the 15-day period and it cannot be corrected by Certiorari (under Rule 65) as a substitute appeal for a lost one (Under Rule 41). Be that as it may the instant case is far from being completely final and executor considering that Faria and Atty. Bernabe have seasonably appealed the same under Rule 41. To pass upon the above mentioned matter, re propriety and correctness of Summary Judgment now in the instant petition is not only improper but also hovers on procedural and jurisdictional matters not to mention that it would be premature as it preempts the proper and timely adjudication of the respective appeals (of Faria and Atty. Bernabe) on its merits by this Court at the proper opportune time.

                WHEREOF, there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on the part of public rendering the assailed Resolution dated January 30, 2012 containing the Summary Judgment and the Resolution dated December 11, 2012 denying HDMF, Faria and Atty. Bernabe’s Motion for Reconsideration, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

                SO ORDERED.

                                                                                STEPHEN C. CRUZ

                                                                                Associate Justice

                WE CONCUR:

MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON                           ELIHU A. YBANEZ

        Associate Justice                                      Associate Justice


Published in Our Blog

Republic of the Philippines




Camp Crame, Quezon City


TO                          :               ALL REGIONALS, SOD’S ID AND WAISS Chiefs

FROM                   :               DIRECTOR, CIDG

SUBJECT               :               Recalled lifted and and Quashed Warrant of Arrest against Delfin S. Lee in CC                        no. 18480

DATE                     :               November 20, 2013

  1. References
    1. Referral slip from CIDG with remarks “Request Appropriate Action” “ Request Dissemination” and “ For info/ref/file” dated Nov. 13, 2013
    2. Letter from atty. Willie Rivera dated Nov. 13, 2013
    3. Certification from court of Appeals dated Nov. 12, 2013; and
    4. Decision of Special Fifteenth (15th)Division, Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. SP no. 127553 promulgated on Nov. 07, 2013
  2. This pertains to the letter from Atty. Willie b. Rivera, requesting the delisting and / or removal of the name of their client Mr. Delfin S. Lee from the PNP-CIDG list of Warrant of Arrest
  3. Please be informed that the Court of Appeals Special 15th Division promulgated a decision in CA G.R SP No. 127553 dated Nov. 07, 2013 “the warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Delfin S. Lee is hereby QUASHED, RECALLED and LIFTED” the Criminal Case No. 18480. Furthermore, “all government agencies tasked in the enforcement of the paid warrant of arrest including but not limited to the Philippine National Police, National Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Immigration are immediately enjoined from implementing the same”. Attached is the decision of the above court together with the certified true copy of the same for your perusal.
  4. ITCON, you are hereby enjoined from implementing the warrant of arrest against Delfin S. Lee in so far as Criminal Case No. 18480 is concerned.
  5. For Strict compliance.




NVP BLESILDA E. DAGOGOY 12/6/13                                       ELISEO TAM RASCO, MPA

                                                                                                                POLICE SENIOR SEPRINTENDENT (DSC)

                                                                                                                CHIEF DIRECTORIAL POLICE



Published in Our Blog

CA-G.R. SP No. 127553


J. Diamante

Supreme Court in the case of Salonga vs. Hon. Paño, et al. instructs, thus:

                “The purpose of preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. The right to a preliminary investigation is a salutatory grant, and to withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due process. However, in order to satisfy the due process clause it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is conducted in the sense of making sure that the transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A preliminary investigation serves not only the purpose of the State.  More important, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. It is, therefore, imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may be, to relieved the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such as finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the dictates of reason. The judge of fiscal, therefore should not go on with prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it has been before. It should continue to be so.” (Emphasis Supplied). (Citations Omitted).


                Meanwhile, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the OSG on September 18, 2013 is merely NOTED in the view of the previous resolution issued by this Court denying its motion of extension of time within which to file a Memorandum.

                WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated May 22. 2012 and August 22, 2012 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for the issuance thereof was attended with grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent Hon. Ma. Amifaith S. Fider-Reyes, in her capacity as the Presiding judge of San Fernando, Pampanga RTC - Branch 42. Consequently the warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Delfin S. Lee is hereby QUASHED, RECALLED AND LIFTED. Afore-named public respondent judge is directed to CEASE and DESIST from future proceedingwith Criminal Case No. 18480 insofar as petitioner Delfin S. Lee is concerned.


                Furthermore, all government agencies tasked in the enforcement of the said warrant of arrest including but not limited to the Philippine National Police (PNP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Bureau of Immigration (BI) are immediately ENJOINED from implementing the same.

                SO ORDERED.


Associate Justice


                WE CONCUR:


AGNES REYES- CAPRIO                                                                                                                                  MELCHOR Q.C SADANG                               

Associate Justice                                                                                                                                             Associate Justice



Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case to the writer of the opinion of the court.


Associate Justice

Acting Chairperson

Special Fifteenth Division


You can download the full decision by clicking this link 


Published in Our Blog