SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227001. November 9, 2016.]
JUAN CARLOS L. GALVEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 23, CABANATUAN CITY, RENATO A. VILLAROMAN, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY PROSECUTOR, CABANATUAN CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227001 — Juan Carlos L. Galvez vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cabanatuan City, Renato A. Villaroman, Jr., in his capacity as City Prosecutor, Cabanatuan City, and the People of the Philippines.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Certiorari for (a) being a wrong mode of appeal; (b) lack of written explanation why service was not done personally; and (c) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133469 committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Omnibus Motion (For Immediate Release of Petitioner and for Issuance of Show Cause Order Against Respondents) in its Resolution dated December 22, 2015.
Petitioner adopted the wrong procedural remedy in assailing the Decision of the CA by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is an original special civil action. A writ of certiorari is available to an aggrieved party when the order or resolution of the respondent court involves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case. In this case, petitioner assails the CA's Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration that denied his Omnibus Motion for (For Immediate Release of Petitioner and for Issuance of Show Cause Order against Respondents). The CA's Resolution is a final disposition and leaves nothing else to be done at a particular stage of the same action.
Be that as it may, the CA ruled correctly in ruling that petitioner could no longer be released from detention due to the filing of another set of Informations that contained the written authority and approval of the City Prosecutor. These Informations were filed on the basis of the same incident that resulted in the arrest of petitioner and the filing of the first set of Informations that were dismissed on the ground that the Assistant City Prosecutor was not a person with authority to file the same.
The second set of Informations is permissible since the dismissal of the first set of Informations neither extinguished petitioner's criminal liability nor acquitted him of the charges filed. He would therefore not be subjected to double jeopardy.
The filing of the second set of Informations against petitioner does not entitle him to another preliminary investigation. There is no factual or legal basis for this contention. The records show that he was detained by virtue of a valid warrantless arrest. Thus, the Informations filed before the trial court were results of the inquest proceedings conducted by the inquest prosecutor, and not of a preliminary investigation. The procedure adopted was pursuant to law. 1
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DISMISS the instant Petition for Certiorari. ICHDca
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.