Status of Criminal Case After Withdrawal of Information Following a Petition for Review in the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Philippines

Introduction

In the Philippine criminal justice system, the prosecution of offenses involves a multi-layered process designed to ensure that only cases with sufficient probable cause proceed to trial. A key stage is the preliminary investigation conducted by prosecutors under the Department of Justice (DOJ), which may lead to the filing of an Information—the formal charging document—in court. However, the accused has avenues for challenging the prosecutor's findings, including filing a Petition for Review with the DOJ Secretary. If successful, this petition can result in a directive for the prosecutor to withdraw the Information, effectively altering the trajectory of the criminal case.

This article comprehensively explores the status of a criminal case after the withdrawal of the Information pursuant to a favorable resolution on a Petition for Review in the DOJ. It delves into the legal framework, procedural steps, judicial implications, and practical consequences, all within the Philippine context. The discussion is grounded in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended), relevant DOJ issuances, and established jurisprudence, highlighting how these mechanisms balance prosecutorial discretion with judicial oversight and the rights of the accused.

Legal Framework Governing the Process

Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information

Under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000, as amended), a preliminary investigation is mandatory for offenses where the penalty is at least four years, two months, and one day of imprisonment. This investigation, conducted by a prosecutor (often referred to as a fiscal), determines whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the respondent (accused) is probably guilty thereof.

If probable cause is found, the prosecutor issues a Resolution recommending the filing of an Information in the appropriate court. The Information is then filed, marking the commencement of the criminal action in court. At this point, jurisdiction over the case vests in the court, as affirmed in the landmark case of Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987), where the Supreme Court held that once the Information is filed, the court acquires authority to proceed, independent of the executive branch.

However, the process does not end there. The respondent may challenge the prosecutor's Resolution through a Motion for Reconsideration filed with the same prosecutor. If denied, the next remedy is a Petition for Review with the DOJ Secretary.

Petition for Review in the DOJ

The Petition for Review is governed by DOJ Department Circular No. 70, series of 2000 (National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal), as amended by subsequent circulars such as Department Circular No. 18, series of 2023. This administrative appeal allows the aggrieved party—typically the respondent—to seek a review of the prosecutor's Resolution by the DOJ Secretary or, in some cases, a designated Undersecretary.

Key aspects of the Petition for Review include:

Filing Period: It must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration or, if no motion was filed, from receipt of the original Resolution.
Contents: The petition must include a verified statement, copies of the Resolution and supporting documents, and arguments why the prosecutor's findings should be reversed (e.g., lack of probable cause, errors in evidence evaluation).
Effect on Proceedings: Filing the petition does not automatically stay the filing of the Information or the issuance of an arrest warrant. However, the DOJ may issue a hold departure order or request the court to defer arraignment pending resolution, though courts are not bound by such requests.
Resolution by DOJ: The DOJ Secretary reviews the petition and may affirm, reverse, or modify the prosecutor's Resolution. If reversed (i.e., no probable cause found), the DOJ directs the prosecutor to withdraw the Information if it has already been filed.

This mechanism underscores the DOJ's supervisory authority over prosecutors, as provided under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010), which places the National Prosecution Service under the DOJ.

Interplay Between Petition for Review and Withdrawal of Information

The critical juncture occurs when the DOJ grants the Petition for Review and finds no probable cause. In such instances, the DOJ Resolution typically instructs the Chief State Prosecutor or the handling prosecutor to:

Dismiss the complaint if the Information has not yet been filed.
Move for the withdrawal of the Information if it has been filed in court.

This directive is not self-executing; it requires court action, respecting the principle of judicial independence. As per Crespo v. Mogul, the prosecution cannot withdraw the case without the court's consent once jurisdiction has attached.

Procedure for Withdrawal of Information

Prosecutor's Motion to Withdraw

Upon receipt of the DOJ's directive, the prosecutor files a Motion to Withdraw Information with the court where the case is pending. This motion must:

State the grounds for withdrawal, attaching the DOJ Resolution as evidence.
Be filed before the accused is arraigned, as post-arraignment withdrawals are more restricted due to double jeopardy concerns.
If the accused is detained, the motion may include a request for release.

The motion is typically non-litigious, but the court may require a hearing if it deems necessary, allowing the private complainant (if any) to oppose it.

Judicial Scrutiny and Approval

The court exercises discretion in approving the withdrawal. Under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court must independently evaluate whether there is indeed no probable cause or if withdrawal serves the ends of justice. Jurisprudence, such as in Galman v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986), emphasizes that the court is not a mere rubber stamp; it must satisfy itself that the withdrawal is justified.

Factors courts consider include:

Strength of evidence as reviewed by the DOJ.
Stage of proceedings (pre-arraignment withdrawals are more readily granted).
Rights of the private complainant, who may file a motion for reconsideration or certiorari if aggrieved.
Public interest in prosecuting the offense.

If approved, the court issues an Order granting the withdrawal and dismissing the case. If denied, the case proceeds, and the prosecutor must continue despite the DOJ's directive—though this is rare and may lead to administrative issues for the prosecutor.

Status of the Criminal Case After Withdrawal

Immediate Consequences

Upon court approval of the withdrawal:

Dismissal of the Case: The criminal action is terminated. The dismissal is generally provisional (without prejudice), meaning the case can be refiled if new evidence emerges or upon DOJ reconsideration.
Release of the Accused: If the accused was detained via a warrant of arrest, the court orders their immediate release. Any hold departure order is lifted.
Recall of Warrants: Outstanding arrest warrants are quashed.
Effect on Bail: If bail was posted, it is exonerated, and the bond is returned.

Nature of the Dismissal

The dismissal following withdrawal is not equivalent to an acquittal. As clarified in People v. Lacson (G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003), such dismissals are provisional unless the court specifies otherwise or double jeopardy attaches. Double jeopardy applies only if:

The accused was arraigned and pleaded.
The dismissal was on the merits after jeopardy attached (e.g., after trial begins).

In most Petition for Review scenarios, withdrawal occurs pre-arraignment, so no double jeopardy bars refiling.

Possibility of Refiling

Since the dismissal is without prejudice:

The DOJ or prosecutor may reinvestigate if new evidence surfaces.
The private complainant can file a new complaint, triggering another preliminary investigation.
Time limitations apply: Prescription periods under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code continue to run, potentially barring refiling if the offense prescribes.

However, repeated filings without new evidence may be deemed harassment, potentially leading to malicious prosecution claims.

Implications for Civil Liability

The withdrawal does not extinguish civil liability arising from the act complained of. Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every crime gives rise to civil liability. The private complainant may pursue a separate civil action or reserve it during the criminal proceedings. If the criminal case is dismissed via withdrawal, the civil aspect may proceed independently unless previously consolidated.

Challenges and Controversies

Delays and Abuse

The Petition for Review process, while protective of the accused's rights, can cause significant delays. Critics argue it allows dilatory tactics, especially in high-profile cases. DOJ Circulars aim to expedite resolutions (e.g., 60-day resolution period), but extensions are common.

Jurisdictional Conflicts

Tensions arise between DOJ authority and judicial independence. In Dimayuga v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 129099, July 20, 2006), the Supreme Court reiterated that courts are not bound by DOJ findings, but in practice, deference is often given to avoid conflicting outcomes.

Remedies for Aggrieved Parties

If the DOJ denies the Petition for Review, the accused may file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Conversely, if the withdrawal is granted but contested, the private complainant can seek certiorari.

Conclusion

The withdrawal of an Information following a successful Petition for Review in the DOJ represents a pivotal mechanism for correcting potential prosecutorial errors, ensuring that only meritorious cases burden the courts. Post-withdrawal, the criminal case is effectively dormant—dismissed without prejudice, with the accused freed from immediate prosecution but not absolutely absolved. This process exemplifies the Philippine system's emphasis on due process, hierarchical review, and checks against arbitrary charging.

Stakeholders must navigate this carefully: prosecutors adhere to DOJ directives while respecting court authority; courts exercise vigilant oversight; and accused individuals leverage remedies without abuse. Ultimately, it reinforces the principle that justice is not merely about conviction but about fairness at every stage. For specific cases, consultation with legal counsel is essential, as outcomes can vary based on factual nuances and evolving jurisprudence.