ALAWIYA VS. DATUMANONG G.R. No.

164170, April 16, 2009 Doctrine: Once a complaint or information is filed in Court, any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the Court. Facts of the Case: Alawiya and other two petitioners executed sworn statements before the Western Police District charging five policemen with kidnapping for ransom. The sworn statements alleged that petitioners were cruising on a board when a vehicle behind bumped them. That when they went to assess the damage, several armed men alighted from the vehicle and forced them to ride in. They were brought to an office and Php 10Million and two vehicles were demanded from them in exchange for their freedom. After further negotiations, the amount was reduced and Php 700Thousand and two vehicles were delivered to the accused. Petitioners were released in the morning. The PNP ordered recommended that the accused be charged with violation of Article 267 of the RPC. State Prosecutor Velasco conducted the preliminary investigation and issued a resolution that the accused be charged with the crime of kidnapping for ransom. He then subsequently filed the Information with the RTC of Manila. Meanwhile, the accused filed a petition for review on the Resolution of Prosecutor Velasco with the Office of the Secretary of Justice and moved for the quashal of the Information on the ground that the Officer has no authority to do so.RTC denied the motion to quash. Secretary of Justice reversed the Resolution of Prosecutor Velasco and ordered Velasco to withdraw or dismissed the information. It ruled on the ground that prior approval with the Office of the Ombudsman should be secured before the filing of the Information. The Secretary also found out that the incident complained of was buy-bust operation and not kidnapping for ransom. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with then Secretary Datumanong against the Resolution but were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Secretary. Hence, this petition for certiorari. Issues: (a) Whether or not prior approval by the office of the Ombudsman is required for the case to prosper? (b) Whether or not the reversal of the Secretary of Justice of the resolution made by Pro. Velasco amounted to executive acquittal? (c) Whether or not the accused can seek any relief such as motion to quash the information from the trial court when they had not been arrested yet?

Held: The Court remanded the case to the RTC whether there was a probable cause to hold the accused in trial. (1) On the prior approval by the Ombudsman, the Court held that it is not required since the power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similar authorized agencies of the government such as the state prosecutor. (2) As regards to the reversal, it is well settled rule that the Secretary of Justice has the power to review resolutions of his subordinates such as the Prosecutor even after an information was already filed with the RTC. However, such reversal did not amount to executive acquittal since the Secretary is only exercising his power to review including the power to reverse the Resolution of the Prosecutor. But since information was already filed with the RTC, any dismissal or continuation is left with the Courts discretion and will not be bound with the decision of the Secretary. (3) The motion to quash is inapplicable in this case as ruled in Peopl vs. Mapalao. The Court ruled accused remained at large should not be afforded the right to appeal from conviction or judgment or cannot ask relief from the court as he has deemed waived it. Nothing in the Rules governing Motion to Quash requires that the accused should be under the custody of the law prior to filing of a motion to quash on the ground that the officer filing the information has no authority to do so.