G.R. No. 176596 ; March 23, 2011
JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL E. GAITE, Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, Office of the President; HON. RAUL GONZALES, Secretary, and HON. JOVENCITO ZUÑO, Chief State Prosecutor, both of the Department of Justice (DOJ); HON. RAMON R. GARCIA (Substituted by Hon. JOSEPH LOPEZ), City Prosecutor, ACP MARLINA N. MANUEL, and ACP ADELIZA H. MAGNO-GUINGOYON, all of the Manila Prosecution Service; and SSP EMMANUEL VELASCO, Department of Justice, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Adoracion G. Angeles, a former judge, filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against respondent State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco. The complaint stemmed from Velasco’s earlier filing of child abuse charges against her, which were later ordered withdrawn by the DOJ Secretary. Petitioner’s administrative complaint was dismissed by the DOJ. She then filed a Petition for Review with the Office of the President (OP) assailing the DOJ’s dismissal. In his Comment filed with the OP, respondent Velasco included statements challenging petitioner to agree to an investigation to determine the veracity of information he received, which included allegations that: (a) petitioner is single and belongs to the third sex; (b) she is having an affair with a lady lawyer; (c) this lawyer is often seen in her courtroom and is a conduit for those with pending cases in her sala; and (d) petitioner was insecure and jealous of her grandniece, which led to the alleged child abuse. Petitioner filed a Complaint for four counts of libel against respondent Velasco before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila based on these statements. The Assistant City Prosecutor recommended dismissal of the libel complaint, finding the statements were not clearly defamatory, were made in the context of a challenge for an investigation, and were privileged communications made in the course of official proceedings before the OP. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the DOJ Secretary, which was dismissed by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño, who ruled the statements were privileged as they were made in legitimate defense of respondent’s own interest. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion in the prosecutors’ finding of no probable cause for libel, as the statements were qualifiedly privileged communications. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari and upholding the finding of no probable cause to charge respondent Velasco with libel.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public prosecutors in dismissing the libel complaint. The Court reiterated the doctrine that in determining probable cause, the public prosecutor must ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. The Court emphasized that it will not interfere with the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause unless it is shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the prosecutors found the statements in respondent Velasco’s Comment were not defamatory, as they were phrased as a challenge for an investigation rather than categorical assertions, and were qualifiedly privileged communications made in the course of an official proceeding (the administrative case before the OP) and relevant to the issue of the petitioner’s moral fitness as an accuser. The Court found no arbitrariness or capriciousness in this finding. The Court further noted that the statements, even if potentially damaging, were made in the context of respondent defending himself against the administrative complaint, and thus fell within the scope of privileged communication. Therefore, the CA committed no reversible error in upholding the prosecutors’ resolutions.