The power of control implies the right of the President (and, naturally, of his alter ego) to interfere in the

exercise of
such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such
officers.

SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER, VS. TEODULO NANO
ALAON, RESPONDENT

Teodulo was charged before the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Norte for alleged Rapeon three occasion by AAA, a
minor. After the requisite preliminary investigation where Teodulo was charged with rape, but filed a motion for
reconsideration thereof, the provincial prosecutor charged Teodule with acts of lasciviousness instead of rape. The
corresponding Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court presided by Judge Leo. Unknown to Teodulo, BBB, the
mother of AAA sent a letter to the Secretary of Justice narrating what happened to AAA, who allegedly suffers from an
intellectual disability. Thus, the Secretary of Justice ordered the Provincial Prosecutor to forward the entire records of the
case and to defer the filing of the Information against Teodulo.

Thus, the assistant provincial prosecutor, on a mistaken belief that Teodulo filed a petition for review with the DOJ,
requested the withdrawal of the information against Intia. While the judge found probable cause with the Information filed,
he took into consideration Prosecutor Estrellados letter and suspended the proceedings. He also ordered Estrellado to
submit a copy of Teodulos petition for review. When Prosecutor Estrellado realised his mistake, he filed a Manifestation
before the RTC that Teodulo did not in fact file a Petition for Review but was merely informed by BBB that they sought the
assistance of the DOJ Secretary by way of the letter.

Alarmed at this development, Teodulo moved to lift the suspension of proceedings and his arraignment on the charge for
acts of lasciviousness set, invoking his right to speedy trial. The RTC granted the motion. Prosecutor Estrellado, confused,
withdrew his appearance before the case, in view of the directive by the DOJ. The RTC denied this order, citing the
withdrawal of appearance is not a proper remedy. The prosecutor then filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings which the
RTC also denied and set the case for pre-trial.

Meantime, at the Department of Justice, the review process ended in the DOJ reversing the earlier finding of acts of
lasciviousness and directing the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to file a case for rape against Teodulo. Teodulo thus filed
a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the review of the resolution by the Secretary of Justice did not go through the appeals
process mandated by the DOJ, thus it should not have been treated as a petition for review. The review therefore was made
with grave abuse of discretion.

The Secretary of Justice elevated the case to the Supreme Court, invoking its power of review over the orders and
resolutions of the provincial and city prosecutors. May the DOJ Secretary review the resolution of its prosecutors even
without a petition for review filed by any of the parties?

The Supreme Court:

The Secretary of Justice did not abuse his discretion when he acted on the letter request of BBB, the mother of the victim,
AAA.

There is no quarrel about the Secretary of Justices power of review over the actions of his subordinates, specifically public
prosecutors. This power of review is encompassed in the Secretary of Justices authority of supervision and control over the
bureaus, offices, and agencies under him, subject only to specified guidelines.

Chapter 7, section 38, paragraph 1 of Executive Order No. 292 or The Administrative Code of 1987, defines the
administrative relationship that is supervision and control:

SECTION 38. Definition of Administrative Relationships. Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Code or in other laws
defining the special relationships of particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be categorized and defined as
follows:

(1) Supervision and Control. Supervision and control shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific function is
entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review,
approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans
and programs; and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs. Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in
the specific law governing the relationship of particular agencies, the word control shall encompass supervision and
control as defined in this paragraph.

In Noblejas v. Judge Salas, we defined control as the power (of the department head) to alter, modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of
the latter. The power of control implies the right of the President (and, naturally, of his alter ego) to interfere in the exercise
of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such
officers.

Founded on the power of supervision and control over his subordinates, we do not find abuse of discretion, much more
grave abuse of discretion, by the Secretary of Justice when he took cognizance of BBBs letter and treated it as a petition
for review from the provincial prosecutors resolution. It cannot be said that in this case, there was an absence of a petition
for review. There was in fact an appeal from the prosecutors resolution, although not as described in the National
Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal. There was, tersely put, an appeal that the Secretary of Justice had ample power to
act upon. In fact, the Secretary of Justice acted on the letter request of BBB. What was done was not a motu propio review.