Dimatulac vs.

Villon

Facts:
In the prosecution of the Yabuts for the murder of Dimatulac, the Office of the Public Prosecutor
(particularly the Asst Prosecutor) and two Judges (who handled the case) committed serious procedural flaws
resulting in the impairment of due process (prejudicial to both the offended party and the accused).

Procedural irregularities in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor:

o Warrants of arrest were issued by the MCTC, with no bail recommended, but the Yabuts were not
arrested or were never brought unto the custody of the law. Yet, Asst Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes conducted a
reinvestigation. Though a prosecutor may disagree with the findings of the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation (and conduct his own), the circumstance that the accused waived the filing of their
counter-affidavits left Alfonso-Reyes no other choice but to sustain the MCTC findings—which she did not
do. And later on, Alfonso-Reyes allowed the Yabuts to file their counter-affidavits without first demanding
that they surrender by virtue of the standing warrants of arrest.
o Alfonso-Reyes recommended a bond of 20k for the Yabuts despite the fact that they were charged of
homicide and that they were fugitives from justice (having avoided service of warrant of arrest).
o Alfonso-Reyes was aware of the private prosecution’s appeal to the DOJ from her resolution. (The
subsequent resolution of the DOJ Secretary exposed her blatant errors.) And despite the pending appeal, she
filed the Information. It would be more prudent to wait for the DOJ resolution.
o Office of the Prosecutor did not even inform the trial court of the pending appeal to the DOJ Secretary.

Judge Roura’s procedural lapses:

o Deferred resolution on the motion for a hold departure order until “such time that all the accused who are
out on bail are arraigned”
o Denied the motion to defer proceedings for the reason that “private prosecution has not shown any
indication that the appeal was given due course by DOJ”

Judge Villon’s procedural lapses:

o Ordered arraignment despite: a motion to defer proceedings; a ten-day period with which the
complainants can file petition with the CA; resolution of the CA ordering the Yabuts to comment on the
complainants’ action; pending appeal with the DOJ.

Issue:
Can the orders of Judge Roura and Judge Villon be sustained despite procedural defects?

Held:
No. The orders of Judge Roura denying Motion to Defer proceedings are void and set aside. The order of
Judge Villon on the arraignment, and the subsequent arraignment of the Yabuts are void and set aside. Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor is ordered to 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.