When an Accused Is Arraigned: DOJ Review of Prosecutor’s Ruling Barred

The Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Adasa v. Abalos (G.R. No. 168617) settles a recurring question in Philippine criminal procedure: may the Secretary of Justice still review a prosecutor’s resolution after the accused has already been arraigned? The Court answered with a firm no, explaining that once an accused pleads to the charge, the right to preliminary investigation—and to appeal its outcome—is deemed waived. The decision clarifies the mandatory character of DOJ Circular No. 70 and reaffirms the trial court’s authority over cases already filed before it.

The Case: A Dispute Over Estafa Charges

The case began when respondent Cecille Abalos filed complaints for estafa against petitioner Bernadette Adasa. Abalos alleged that Adasa received and encashed two checks issued in Abalos’s name without her knowledge or consent, and that Adasa refused to pay the proceeds despite demand. Adasa initially admitted receiving and encashing the checks but later recanted, claiming that a certain Bebie Correa had taken the checks and left the country after misappropriating the proceeds.

The City Prosecutor of Iligan City found probable cause and filed two Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents under Article 315, in relation to Articles 171 and 172, of the Revised Penal Code. Adasa moved for reinvestigation, but the prosecutor affirmed the finding of probable cause. Adasa was then arraigned and entered an unconditional plea of not guilty.

The Issue: Did the DOJ Overstep Its Authority?

Adasa later filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ reversed the prosecutor’s finding and directed the withdrawal of the Information. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the case. Abalos challenged the DOJ’s action before the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the DOJ had gravely abused its discretion because Adasa had already been arraigned when she filed her petition for review. Under Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70, the DOJ is barred from giving due course to a petition if the accused had already been arraigned.

The Ruling: Arraignment Ends the Right to Review

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70 is clear and mandatory: when an information has been filed and the accused has already been arraigned, the Secretary of Justice must dismiss the petition for review outright. The Court rejected the argument that Section 12 of the same circular, which uses the permissive word “may,” gives the Secretary discretion to entertain such petitions. Reading the two provisions together, the Court explained that Section 7 governs what the DOJ must do when confronted with a petition filed after arraignment, while Section 12 merely lists the general grounds for dismissing an appeal.

The Court also rejected Adasa’s reliance on Crespo v. Mogul and related cases. In those cases, the accused had not yet been arraigned when the petition for review was filed. The Court emphasized that when an accused pleads to the charge, he or she is deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation and the right to question any irregularity surrounding it. This waiver extends to reinvestigation and to any appeal of the reinvestigation result.

The Trial Court’s Dismissal Was Void

The Court also addressed the argument that the case had become moot because the trial court had already dismissed it. The Court held that the dismissal order was void because it was based on the DOJ’s resolutions, which themselves were void for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. A void judgment has no legal effect, and all proceedings founded on it are likewise invalid.

Practical Takeaways

• Once an accused is arraigned, the Secretary of Justice can no longer review a prosecutor’s resolution in the same case. The petition for review must be dismissed outright under DOJ Circular No. 70.
• Arraignment operates as a waiver of the right to preliminary investigation, including reinvestigation and any appeal of its result.
• A trial court’s order dismissing a case based on a void DOJ resolution is itself void and may be challenged despite the passage of time.
• The doctrine in Crespo v. Mogul does not apply when the accused was already arraigned before seeking DOJ review; that case involved a petition filed before arraignment.
• For practitioners, the practical lesson is to file any petition for review with the DOJ before arraignment, or to secure a suspension of arraignment while the petition is pending.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.