"Just a setback."

This was how Lorayne Pardo's lawyer, Atty. Firdausi Abbas, described the resolution issued by the Dept. of Justice (DOJ), which recently dismissed Richard Gutierrez's Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide case. (CLICK HERE to read related story.)

During the press conference held last March 24 at the Abbas Law Firm in Greenhills, San Juan, Lorayne's camp declared that the resolution will not halt the arraignment at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Silang, Cavite scheduled on March 31.

Atty. Abbas and Atty. Ombra Jainal, both working pro bono to help Lorayne in her "fight for justice," said the arraignment will push through because they filed a motion for reconsideration to the DOJ to bar the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, Emmanuel Velasco, from acting on the former DOJ Secretary Agnes Devanadera's order to withdraw the case from the court.

According to Atty. Abbas, Secretary Devanadera's resolution to dismiss the homicide case is "not binding" on the courts. He said the Cavite court is bound to "assess the merits of the case," and not dismiss it just because of the DOJ resolution. The lawyer said he trusts Judge Victoria N. Cupin-Tesorero to not "agree with the decision of the Secretary of Justice."

The DOJ, Abbas said, is under the Executive branch of the government, while the courts are under the Judiciary branch.

Art. III, Sec. 1 of the Philippine Constitution guarantees the separation of powers between the three branches of the government—the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary—"each branch being supreme in its own sphere but with constitutional limits and a firm tripod of checks and balances."

What the DOJ can only do is to order prosecutors, who work for the DOJ, to file a motion to withdraw the criminal Information that they submitted to the courts. However, it is still up to the Court to grant or deny the said motion to withdraw based on its own assessment of the evidence. Atty. Abbas said he is confident that the Judge Cupin-Tesorero will not grant the prosecutor's motion because the evidence is clear.

DOJ RESOLUTION. The resolution, signed by Secretary Devanadera and promulgated on March 1 just before she resigned from the DOJ, "resolve(d) the separate petitions for review by the complainant Lorayne Torres Pardo and Richard Rama Gutierrez of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite."

This DOJ resolution cited three points to justify the Secretary's dismissal of the case: (1) that Richard left the incident because he was "injured," and that his departure can "hardly be considered as an act of abandonment," (2) that Lorayne Pardo's statements were only "hearsay at best," and (3) that the damage sustained by Richard's sports car was not a basis to conclude that he "was driving the vehicle at a 'mind-boggling speeds' (sic)."

In her petition before the DOJ seeking to upgrade the case to reckless negligence resulting to homicide, Lorayne argued that the prosecutor "erred in completely disregarding the presence of the qualifying circumstance of the failure of respondent [Richard] to lend immediate assistance to her husband, the deceased Nomar E. Pardo, during the fatal accident in the early morning of May 22, 2009."

The removal of the qualifying circumstance reduced the maximum penalty that can be served to Richard if he were found guilty by the court. It also opened the possibility of probation. (CLICK HERE to read related story)

Secretary Devanadera found "no merit" in Lorayne's petition, and instead granted the petition of the actor for the dismissal of the case, in effect dismissing the charge of simple negligence resulting to homicide charges against Richard.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Lorayne's motion for reconsideration asked the DOJ through its new Secretary Alberto Agra to reconsider former Secretary Devanadera's resolution, and thereby to dismiss Richard's petition for review, and to grant her request to add the qualifying circumstance to the current simple imprudence resulting to homicide case being heard in Cavite.

In the press conference, Atty. Abbas explained that they are filing the motion for reconsideration because the resolution is "contrary to the evidence presented, the facts, and the pertinent laws."