Practice question
Outside the NCR, a Regional State Prosecutor decides on appeal a first-level-court case and denies the aggrieved party's motion for reconsideration. The party alleges specific grave abuse of discretion and considers a further ordinary appeal to the Secretary of Justice indispensable before seeking judicial relief. Under Porto and the current finality rule, which is sound?
- A second ordinary appeal to the Secretary is always indispensable
- No further ordinary appeal lies on those facts; an appropriate Rule 65 petition before the CA may be pursued if its requisites are met
- Only an appeal to the barangay is available
- Every unfavorable prosecutorial finding must be reversed by the CA
- Administrative finality makes even grave abuse judicially unreviewable
Legal references
- https://comanialaw.com/doj-department-circular-no-015-series-of-2024/ — Reproduced DOJ D.C. No. 015, series of 2024, §§12–20 (inquest and remedies); issuance upheld in Meking.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/oct2022/gr_257446_2022.html — Porto v. Grant Institute of Trade & Technology, G.R. No. 257446, October 12, 2022, MAIN decision (D.C. No. 27, series of 2022, review routes and finality).
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/4/70233 — Meking v. Remulla, G.R. No. 280455, November 11, 2025, EN BANC MAIN decision (DOJ-NPS rules and executive charging standard).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.