FORTALEZA v. GONZALEZ, GR No.

179287, February 1, 2016 (First Division),

Leonardo De Castro

RESOLUTION

Factual Antecedents:

Maximo Lomoljo Jr., Ricardo Suganob, and Eleuterio Salabas were allegedly
kidnapped in Bacold City. Days later, their dead bodies were found in different places in
Negors Oriental. Several criminal complaints were filed, among these was the
complaint by the wife of Salabas against P/Insp. Dongail but it was DISMISSED for lack
of merit.

So she filed another AMMENDED AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT FOR KIDNAPPING

WITH MURDER against Dongail and petitioners PCI Jimmy Fortaleza and SPO2
Freddie Natividad and eight other people. Probable cause against Dongail was found
but the case against petitioners were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

This prompted the wife of Salabas to file an URGENT MOTION FOR

REINVESTIGATION praying for the inclusion of Dongail and herein petitioners in the
information. Without waiting for a reinvestigation, the records of the case were ordered
to be forwarded to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review.

But the Provincial Prosecution Office did not conduct a reinvestigation, and
instead, affirmed in toto the decision of the prosecutors. This prompted the wife of
Salabas to file an UNRGENT MOTION TO COMPEL PROSECUTOR TO CONDUCT
REINVESTIGATION. But the Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales issued a Resolution
MODIFYING the resolution of the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecution Office which
found probabale cause gainst Dongail and Estanislao only and dismissed the case
against the others. The new Resolution ordered that an amended complaint be filed
and include Fortaleza and Nativdad therein.

Thus, petitioners filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the Court of Appeals
challenging the resolution alleging that: (1) the Resolution of the Prosecution Office had
already become final; (2) they were not informed of the alleged PETITION FOR
REVIEW.

CA DISMISSED the Petition for lack of merit, stating that the Secretary of Justice
has the power of supervision and control over prosecutors and can take cognizance of a
pending case before the Prosecution Office. And since the case involves the exercise
of the Secretary’s power of control and does not involve a petition for review, the
requirement of furnishing copies of said petition for review to respondents does not
apply in the case at bar.
 Hence, petitioners filed a PETITION FOR REVIEW to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Office of the President through the Executive Secretary SET
ASIDE the Resolution of the DOJ contending that even though DOJ has such power of
control, there is yet no new decision in the case to be reviewed. The second
investigation has yet to commence when the DOJ ordered the transmittal of the case for
review.

Hence, Salabas filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI to the Supreme Court.

The two cases were consolidated, thus, we have two petitions: (1) PETITION
FOR REVIEW by Fortaleza and Natividad which assailed the CA decision; (2)
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI by Salabas which assailed the decision of the Office of
the President.

The Supreme Court DENIED the PETITION FOR REVIEW for failure of the
petitioners to show that CA committed any reversible error. And since Fortaleza and
Natividad did not file a Motion for Reconsideration, the Resolution of the SC became
final and executory.

The case at bar, will now resolve the PETITION FOR CERTIORARI of Salabas.

Issue/s: Whether or not respondents violated the law of the case doctrine when it
disregarded the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the power and authority of
the Secretary of Justice in issuing his resolution indicting private respondents of the
crime charged.

Ruling:

No. Law of the case requires the same parties. GR No. 179287 and GR No.
182090 do not involve the same parties.

Law of the case is defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal, and
means, that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of
decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the
case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the Court.

Without the rule, there would be no end to litigation. An itch to reopen questions
foreclosed on a first appeal would result in foolishness.

The law of the case applies even if prior resort to the appellate court is in a
certiorari proceeding, as in the case at bar. If this doctrine were applied, the previous
opinion of the CA that the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice was valid, should
govern the case.
 However, the doctrine of law of the case requires that the appeal be that of the
same parties, and that pronouncement by the appellate court be with full opportunity to
be heard accorded to said parties. Hence, the law of the case cannot apply here.

On a more substantive point, we cannot adhere to the position of the Office of the
President that the entire case be remanded to the Provincial Prosecutor on the ground
that the Secretary of Justice may not exercise its power to review where there was
allegedly no new resolution rendered by the local prosecutor.

It is established that the Secretary of Justice has the statutory power of control
and supervision over prosecutors which includes to review, approve, reverse, or modify
acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units (Sec. 38. Par. 1. EO 292
Administrative Code). Moreover, Rule 112, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court recognized the
power of the Secretary to review the actions of the investigating prosecutor, motu
proprio.

However, we note that respondents should be given due notice of the review
proceeding before the Secretary of Justice and be afforded adequate opportunity to be
heard therein.

In the case at bar, we find that there is nothing on record to show that
respondents were given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Secretary of
Justice. For this reason, we remand the case to the Secretary of Justice with respect to
Dongail, Lorilla, Hulleza, and Cimatu for further proceedings with the caveat that any
resolution of the Secretary of Justice on the matter shall be subject to the approval of
the trial court.

Wherefore, Decision of the Office of the President is SET ASIDE. The case is
REMANDED to the Secretary of Justice for further proceedings.