ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141414-16. March 6, 2000]

JIMMY T. GO aka JAIME T. GAISANO vs. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 6 2000.

G.R. No. 141414-16 (Jimmy T. Go aka Jaime T. Gaisano vs. Alberto T. Looyuko.)

Petitioner was indicted for two (2) counts of Falsification of Public Documents and one (1) count of Perjury, under Informations filed on April 29, 1998 and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 297206-08 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6. Upon motion of Petitioner, the trial court ordered a re-investigation of the cases, where, on September 1, 1998, petitioner was able to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses before Assistant City Prosecutor Cynthia G. Falcotelo. On May 14, 1999, the Investigating Prosecutor recommended the prosecution of petitioner for perjury but deferred resolution of the falsification cases pending examination by the National Bureau of Investigation of the alleged falsified signatures. Petitioner seasonably filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice. At the scheduled arraignment on October 27, 1999 the trial court denied petitioner's motion to defer arraignment and, upon his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. After petitioner's two motions for reconsideration were denied by the trial court, he filed a petition for review directly to this Court assailing the denial of his motion to defer arraignment, on the ground that the pending appeal before the DOJ constitutes a prejudicial question which warrants the suspension of his arraignment. Furthermore, petitioner argues that his substantial right to a preliminary investigation was violated.

The petition for review must be denied. The assailed Order denying petitioner's motion to defer arraignment was interlocutory. Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only final orders or resolution may be appealed to this Court by way of petition for review on certiorari. Moreover, the petition lacks merit. Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court (Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 [1987]). The appeal filed with the DOJ does not constitute a prejudicial question which could warrant suspension of the criminal cases against petitioner. Rule 111, Section 6 of the Rules of Court operates only where a prejudicial question exists in a pending civil action. Likewise, the contention that petitioner's right to a preliminary investigation was violated is untenable, in view of petitioner's own admission that a re-investigation of the criminal complaints against him was conducted at which he was given an opportunity to, and he did in fact, submit his counter-affidavits as well as the affidavits of his witnesses.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review is DENIED.

Pardo, J., is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE