CASE DIGEST: Torres Jr. vs. Sps. Aguinaldo

 

G.R. No. 164268 June 28, 2005

ARTEMIO T. TORRES, JR., Petitioner, vs. SPS. DRS. EDGARDO AGUINALDO & NELIA T. TORRES-AGUINALDO, Respondents.

FACTS:

Respondent-spouses Edgardo and Nelia Aguinaldo filed a complaint against petitioner Artemio T. Torres, Jr. for falsification of public document. They alleged that titles to their properties were transferred without their knowledge and consent in the name of Torres through a forged Deed of Sale. Torres denied the allegations of forgery and claimed that Aguinaldo sold the subject properties to him.

Finding probable cause, the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for falsification of public document against Torres before the MTC. On appeal, the Secretary of Justice reversed the findings of the investigating prosecutor and ordered the withdrawal of the information.

A Motion to Withdraw Information was filed which the MTC granted on June 11, 2003. It should be noted that petitioner has not been arraigned.

Meanwhile, Aguinaldo filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari which was granted. The CA reverse and set aside the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice.

ISSUE:

Whether the order of the MTC-Manila granting the motion to withdraw the information rendered moot the petition for certiorari filed by Aguinaldo

Whether the rule on provisional dismissal under Sec. 8, Rule 117 applies

RULING:

A motion to withdraw information differs from a motion to dismiss. While both put an end to an action filed in court, their legal effect varies. The order granting the withdrawal of the information attains finality after 15 days from receipt thereof, without prejudice to the re-filing of the information upon reinvestigation.

On the other hand, the order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final 15 days after receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing of the same case once such order achieves finality. In Bañares II v. Balising, a motion to dismiss was filed thus putting into place the time-bar rule on provisional dismissal.

In the case at bar, a motion to withdraw information was filed and not a motion to dismiss. Hence, Bañares II v. Balising would not apply. Unlike a motion to dismiss, a motion to withdraw information is not time-barred and does not fall within the ambit of Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that the law on provisional dismissal becomes operative once the judge dismisses, with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party: (a) a case involving a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or a fine of any amount, or both, where such provisional dismissal shall become permanent 1 year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived; or (b) a case involving a penalty of imprisonment of more than 6 years, where such provisional dismissal shall become permanent 2 years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.

There is provisional dismissal when a motion filed expressly for that purpose complies with the following requisites, viz.: (1) It must be with the express consent of the accused; and (2) There must be notice to the offended party. Section 8, Rule 117 contemplates the filing of a motion to dismiss, and not a motion to withdraw information. Thus, the law on provisional dismissal does not apply in the present case.