Hipos Sr. Vs Bay
Hipos Sr. Vs Bay
Hipos Sr. Vs Bay
174813-15
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Whether or not the SC can compel respondent Judge Bay to dismiss the case
through a writ of mandamus by virtue of the resolution of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of QC finding no probable cause against the accused and
subsequently filing a motion to withdraw information.
Ruling:
Facts:
On 15 December 2003, two Informations for the crime of rape and one
Information for the crime of acts of lasciviousness were filed against petitioners
Darryl Hipos, Jaycee Corsio, Arthur Villaruel and two others before the RTC
of Quezon City, acting as a Family Court, presided by respondent Judge Bay.
The Informations were signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Ronald C.
Torralba.
On 23 February 2004, private complainants AAA1 and BBB filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation asking Judge Bay to order the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
to study if the proper Informations had been filed against petitioners and their
co-accused. Judge Bay granted the Motion and ordered a reinvestigation of
the cases.
On 19 May 2004, petitioners filed their Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the
Case[s] before the City Prosecutor. They claimed that there was no probable
cause to hold them liable for the crimes charged.
On 10 August 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution on
the reinvestigation affirming the Informations filed against petitioners and their
co-accused. The Resolution was signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Raniel
S. Cruz and approved by City Prosecutor Claro A. Arellano.
On 3 March 2006, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C. de Vera, treating
the Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case as an appeal of the 10 August
2004 Resolution, reversed the Resolution dated 10 August 2004, holding that
there was lack of probable cause. On the same date, the City Prosecutor filed
a Motion to Withdraw Informations before Judge Bay.
On 2 October 2006, Judge Bay denied the Motion to Withdraw Informations in
an Order of even date.
have been to file a Petition for Certiorari against the assailed Order of Judge
Bay.
of the court must not, however, impair the substantial rights of the accused or
the right of the People to due process of law.