DIMATULAC VS VILLON

G.R. No. 127107. October 12, 1998

Facts:
In the prosecution of the Yabuts for the murder of Dimatulac, the Office of the Public Prosecutor
and two Judges committed serious procedural flaws resulting in the impairment of due process.
Warrants of arrest – with no bail recommended – were issued by the MCTC, but the Yabuts were
not arrested nor were never brought unto the custody of the law. This is so because the Assistant
Prosecutor Alfonso-Reyes conducted a reinvestigation that contradicted the Judge’s preliminary
investigation finding probable cause for the crime of murder against the accused the Yabuts.
The fact that accused waived the filing of their counter-affidavits left Alfonso-Reyes with no other
choice but to sustain the MCTC Judge’s findings; however, Alfonso-Reyes did not do so, instead, the
latter allowed the Yabuts to file their counter-affidavits without first demanding that they surrender by
virtue of the standing warrants of arrest.
Further, Alfonso-Reyes was aware that the private prosecution timely appealed her blatantly
erroneous resolution to the DOJ; however, despite the pending appeal, Alfonso-Reyes filed the
Information for Homicide with the Court without waiting for the would-be resolution of the DOJ on the
said Appeal.
Corollary, Judge Villon likewise committed a procedural lapse when the latter ordered arraignment
of the accused despite a motion to defer proceedings, resolution of the CA ordering the Yabuts to
comment on the complainants’ action, and pending appeal with the DOJ.
Issue:
Can the Resolution of Assistant Prosecutor Alfonso-Reyes as well as the Orders of Judge Villon be
sustained despite procedural defects?
Held:
No. The order of Judge Villon on the arraignment, and the subsequent arraignment of the Yabuts are
void and should be set aside. Office of the Provincial Prosecutor should comply with the DOJ Secretary’s
Resolution.
Prosecutors are the representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty
whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose
interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win every case but that justice be done. They are
servants of the law whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not escape and innocence shall not suffer.
The judge “should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of
his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice”. The judge’s action must not impair the
substantial rights of the accused, nor the right of the State and offended party.
When the State is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the trial court, the acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the case is void.