Fortaleza v Gonzalez

G.R. No. 179287

FACTS: Maximo Lomoljo, Jr., Ricardo Suganob, and Eleuterio Salabas were allegedly kidnapped in Bacolod
City on August 31, 2003. A few days later, their dead bodies were found in different places in Negros Oriental. Several
criminal complaints were filed in relation to this incident. The first was filed against Police Inspector Clarence Dongail
and 15 other John Does before the Bacolod City Prosecution Office. Investigating Prosecutor Rosanna V. Saril-
Toledano issued a Resolution dated October 24, 2003 dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause.
On October 16, 2003, Elizabeth Orola-Salabas, wife of Eleuterio, filed an Amended Criminal Complaint
against P/Insp. Dongail, Manolo Escalante and 15 other John Does for Kidnapping with Murder before the MTC of
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental. The same was dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis.
On March 1, 2004, Salabas filed another Amended Affidavit Complaint for Kidnapping with Murder before
the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecution Office against P/Insp. Dongail, Ramonito Estanislao, Manolo Escalante,
Ronnie Herrera, SPO 2 Freddie Natividad, PCI Jimmy Fortaleza , PO1 Bernardo Cimatu , PO2 Allen Winston Hulleza,
Insp. Jonathan Lorilla, SPO1 Agustilo Hulleza, Jr., Lorraine Abay, July Flores, Carlo de los Santos, Mamerto Cañete,
Elma Cañete, Bruno Cañete, Elson Cañete and Warlito Cañete. On August 9, 2004, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Joseph
A. Elmaco issued a Resolution finding probable cause against P/Insp. Dongail and Ramonito Estanislao and "15 other
'John Does' for the death of victim Eleuterio Salabas.
P/Insp. Dongail filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On October 1, 2004, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Elmaco
issued an Order discharging P/Insp. Dongail from the criminal complaint. An Information for Kidnapping with Murder
was thereafter filed against Ramonito Estanislao and 15 other John Does before the Regional Trial Court of
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental.
On December 2, 2004, Orola-Salabas filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation. The RTC issued an Order
directing Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Macarieto I. Trayvilla to conduct the reinvestigation. On December 13, 2004,
the DOJ sent a letter directing the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecution Office to forward the records of I.S. Case
No. 2004-78 to the DOJ for automatic review.
On December 28, 2004, the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecution Office, without conducting a
reinvestigation, issued a Resolution affirming in toto the August 9, 2004 and October 1, 2004 Resolutions of Asst.
Provincial Prosecutor Joseph A. Elmaco. On January 24, 2005, Salabas filed an Urgent Motion to Compel Prosecutor
Macareto I. Trayvilla to Conduct Reinvestigation. On January 27, 2005, the RTC issued
an Order granting said Motion.
On October 2, 2006, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez issued the aforementioned Resolution modifying the
August 9, 2004 resolution of the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecution Office (which found probable cause against
P/Insp. Dongail and Estanislao only and dismissed the case against the other respondents).
PCI Jimmy Fortaleza and SPO2 Freddie Natividad filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA
challenging the October 2, 2006 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice on the following grounds: (1) the Secretary of
Justice erred in entertaining the case despite the fact that complainant Orola-Salabas
did not file a Petition for Review; (2) the August 9, 2004 resolution of the Negros Oriental Provincial Prosecution
Office had already become final; and (3) PCI Jimmy Fortaleza and SPO2 Freddie Natividad were not informed of the
alleged Petition for Review. In the meantime, PS/Insp. Clarence Dongail, P/Insp. Jonathan Laurella, PO3 Allen
Winston Hulleza and PO2 Bernardo Cimatu appealed the same October 2, 2006 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice
before the Office of the President.
On August 16, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for
lack of merit. The appellate court held that the Secretary of Justice has the power of supervision and control over
prosecutors and therefore can motu proprio take cognizance of a case pending before or resolved by the Provincial
Prosecution Office.
PCI Jimmy Fortaleza and SPO2 Freddie Natividad filed with this Court a Petition for Review under Rule 45
challenging the August 16, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals. On September 19, 2007, the Office of the President,
through Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, rendered its Decision in setting aside the October 2, 2006 Resolution of
the Secretary of Justice.
 The Office of the President, through Deputy Executive Secretary Manuel B. Gaite, denied Orola-Salabas's
Motion for Reconsideration. Salabas filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Decision dated Sept
19, 2007 and Resolution date Jan. 9, 2007 of the Office of the President.
On April 30, 2008, this Court issued a Resolution in G.R. No. 179287 denying the Petition for Review for
failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged
decision as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. PCI Jimmy Fortaleza and SPO2 Freddie
Natividad did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's April 30, 2008 Resolution denying the Petition in
G.R. No. 179287.
Consequently, said Resolution of this Court has become final and executory.
In her Petition for Certiorari, Orola-Salabas assailed the PUBLIC RESPONDENTS ACTED WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN PROCEEDING WITH THE APPEAL
AFTER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HA[D] ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, AN ACT
WHICH [WA]S CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY OUTSIDE THEIR POWERS AS IT CONSTITUTE AN
ENCROACHMENT UPON JUDICIAL POWER. Orola-Salabas assert the settled doctrine in the leading case of
Crespo v. Mogul.
Thus, according to Orola-Salabas, when the Informations were filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros
Oriental in the RTC of Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental, Branch 64, in compliance with the October 2, 2006
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case to the exclusion of all other courts
or agencies.
The second assignment of error in effect argues that the determination by the Court of Appeals on the question
of the validity of the Secretary of Justice Resolution should be considered the law of the case and should remain
established in all other steps of the prosecution process.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of the CA on the validity of the Secretary of Justice Resolution should
be considered as the law of the case pursuant to the law of the case doctrine.

HELD: No. Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal, and means, more
specifically, 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.
The doctrine of the law of the case applies even if the prior resort to the appellate court is in a certiorari
proceeding, as in the case at bar. If this doctrine were to be applied, the previous opinion by the Court of Appeals —
that the October 2, 2006 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice was valid should govern on subsequent appeal.
However, the doctrine of the law of the case requires that the appeal be that of the same parties, and that the
pronouncement by the appellate court be with full opportunity to be heard accorded to said parties:
The doctrine of law of the case simply means, therefore, that when an appellate court has once declared the
law in a case, its declaration continues to be the law of that case even on a subsequent appeal, notwithstanding that
the rule thus laid down may have been reversed in other cases. For practical considerations, indeed, once the appellate
court has issued a pronouncement on a point that was presented to it with full opportunity to be heard having been
accorded to the parties, the pronouncement should be regarded as the law of the case and should not be reopened on
remand of the case to determine other issues of the case, like damages. But the law of the case, as the name implies,
concerns only legal questions or issues thereby adjudicated in the former appeal.
G.R. No. 179287 and G.R. No. 182090 do not, however, involve the same parties.
Of the fifteen persons required by the October 2, 2006 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice to be included
in the Information for Kidnapping and Murder, only Jimmy Fortaleza and Freddie Natividad filed a Petition for
Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, were heard thereon, and whose arguments were considered in the Resolution
dated April 30, 2008 in G.R. No. 179287. Clarence Dongail, Jonathan Lorilla, Allen Winston Hulleza and Bernardo
Cimatu, on the other hand, appealed to the Office of the President, and are the parties in G.R. No. 182090, to the
exclusion of Jimmy Fortaleza and Freddie Natividad and the other respondents. The doctrine of the law of the case
does not, therefore, apply here in G.R. No. 182090.
Verily, the Secretary of Justice was empowered to review the actions of the Provincial Fiscal during the
preliminary investigation or the reinvestigation. In the case at bar, we 􀀽nd 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, the
Court remanded the case to the Secretary of Justice with respect to respondents 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.