Adasa v.

Abalos
February 19, 2007
1. The case emanated from two complaints filed against petitioner Adasa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Iligan City for Estafa. A resolution was issued by the City Prosecutor finding a probable cause against petitioner
and ordered the filing of two separate informations for Estafa against the petitioner.
2. The RTC ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation.
3. After the reinvestigation, the City Prosecutor reaffirmed its initial finding of probable cause against the petitioner.
4. During the arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty
5. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the finding of the City Prosecutor, filed a Petition for Review before the DOJ. The
DOJ reversed the resolution of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City and directed the withdrawal of the Information
against petitioner.
6. The Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said resolution of the DOJ.
argued that under Sec. 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70, if the accused has been arraigned already, the
DOJ secretary should not and cannot take cognizance of the petition, but instead deny it
outright.
7. DOJ denied the Motion for Reconsideration
Argues that under Sec. 12, in relation to Sec. 7 of the DOJ Circular No. 70, the DOJ secretary
can entertain appeal even if the accused was already arraigned. This is because of the use of
may in the said provision.
8. In the Court of Appeals, the DOJ Resolution was reversed.
9. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the CA arguing that the overall language of Sec. 7 and Sec. 12 of
DOJ Circular No. 70 is permissive and directory thus the DOJ Secretary can still entertain appeal even if the
accused was already arraigned.
10. The CA dismissed the said Motion. This time it gave an interpretation of Sec. 7 in relation to Sec. 12.
a. Sec. 7: If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, the petition shall not
be given due course if the accused had already been arraigned. use of shall not connotes a positive
prohibition
HELD:
1. Rule in Statutory Construction: When a statute or rule is clear and unambiguous, interpretation need not
be resorted to.
Since Sec. 7 of the subject circular clearly and categorically directs the DOJ to dismiss the outright an appeal
or a petition for review filed after arraignment, no resort to interpretation is necessary
Also there is no irreconcilable conflict between Sec. 7 and Sec. 12 of DOJ Circular No. 70.
Sec. 7
pertains to the action on the petition that the DOJ must take
specifically applies to a situation on what the DOJ must do when confronted with an appeal or a
petition for review that is clearly without merit, manifestly intended to delay, or filed after an accused
has already been arraigned.
Sec. 12
enumerates the options the DOJ has with regard to the disposition of a petition of a petition for
review or of an appeal.
applies generally to the disposition of an appeal. Under said section, the DOJ may take any of four
actions (affirm, reverse, modify, dismiss) when disposing an appeal.
2. Petitioners reliance on principle of contemporaneous construction is unpersuasive.
Rule: Courts may disregard contemporaneous construction in instances where the law or rule construed
possesses no ambiguity, where the construction is clearly erroneous, where strong reason to the construction
exists and where the court has previously given the statute a different interpretation.
If a contemporaneous construction is found to be erroneous, the same must be declared null and void. Such
principle should be as it is applied in the case at bar.