The Department of Justice may have ordered its dismissal three months ago, but the case of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide" against actor Richard Gutierrez remains pending.

The criminal case was filed against Richard, 26, by Lorayne Pardo, 30, on July 23, 2009, two months after the death of her husband Nomar Pardo.

Nomar, Richard's personal assistant, was killed on May 22, 2009, when the actor crashed the Nissan Skyline he was driving in Silang, Cavite. The 42-year-old Nomar, who was seated in the back of the car, was thrown out of the rear window, and was declared "Dead On Arrival" at a Silang hospital. (CLICK HERE to read related story.)

On March 1 this year, former Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera dismissed the case against Richard. In her Resolution, Devanadera ordered the provincial prosecutor of Cavite to withdraw the Information from the court, and declared the criminal Complaint against Richard dismissed.

Following the DOJ's dismissal of the case, the Gutierrezes issued statements expressing gratitude and claiming exoneration for the most famous member of their high-profile family. Annabelle Rama, the family matriarch, relayed the news of the dismissal to the media. (CLICK HERE to read related story.)

But Lorayne Pardo's lawyers countered with a Motion for Reconsideration at the DOJ, which still has to be acted upon to this day. As a result, the Resolution issued by Devanadera did not become final and executory.

In brief, the criminal case is not closed.

In a press conference last March 24, Pardo's counsel, Atty. Firdausi Abbas, assailed the Devanadera Resolution as being "contrary to the evidence presented, the facts, and the pertinent laws."

Furthermore, Abbas told reporters, the DOJ Resolution was "not binding" on the courts. He argued that Devanadera could not dismiss a case already in the courts because this would be a breach of the Constitution.

The DOJ, Abbas noted, is under the government's Executive branch, while the courts (such as the Cavite Municipal Circuit Trial Court in question) are under the Judicial branch. One branch, he noted again, cannot dictate upon the other.

(Abbas is referring to the Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 1, noting the separation of powers of the three co-equal branches of government—Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary—with "each branch being supreme in its own sphere but with constitutional limits and a firm tripod of checks and balances.")

Abbas conceded that the DOJ Secretary had the power to order her prosecutors, who are under the DOJ, to file a Motion to Withdraw the Information on Richard already filed with the court.

But the DOJ Secretary, he argued, had no power to grant or deny the Motion to Withdraw, much less dismiss the Complaint outright. That power remained with the court, he reiterated, and the decision on it depended on the presiding judge's own assessment of the evidence.

In the Richard Gutierrez case, however, Presiding Judge Cupin-Tesorero reached a different decision: She inhibited herself from the case.

VOLUNTARY INHIBITION. On May 31, PEP obtained a copy of Judge Veronica Cupin-Tesorero's Order saying she was inhibiting herself from trying the case.