GR 203605; (April, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203605 , April 23, 2014
P/C INSP. LAWRENCE B. CAJIPE, P/C INSP. JOEL L. MENDOZA, P/C INSP. GERARDO B. BALATUCAN, PO3 JOLITO P. MAMANAO, JR., PO3 FERNANDO REY S. GAPUZ, PO2 EDUARDO G. BLANCO, PO2 EDWIN SANTOS and PO1 JOSIL REY I. LUCENA, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Lilian I. De Vera filed a complaint for multiple murder against petitioners, who are PNP Highway Patrol Group (HPG) officers, and other PNP Special Action Force (SAF) officers, alleging they conspired in the killing of her husband Alfonso “Jun” De Vera and their 7-year-old daughter Lia Allana on December 5, 2008. Witnesses stated that police officers wearing Regional SAF vests fired at Jun’s van; Jun was shot while trying to carry his wounded daughter to safety. After preliminary investigation, the DOJ found probable cause and filed two Informations for murder. Petitioners filed an omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable cause. The RTC of Parañaque dismissed the case against the petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause, finding the evidence showed they acted merely as a blocking force and witnesses did not mention their participation in the shooting. The RTC, however, found probable cause against the SAF officers. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA granted the petition, ordered the issuance of arrest warrants against petitioners, and found the RTC failed to evaluate sworn statements from witnesses Hilario Indiana and Ronald Castillo, who allegedly stated that petitioner HPG officers joined in pursuing and shooting Jun.
ISSUE
1. Whether the CA erred in granting the OSG’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65, given that the RTC’s order of dismissal is a final and appealable order.
2. Whether the CA erred in counting the prescriptive period for filing a Rule 65 petition from the time of receipt of the court order by the OSG rather than by the city prosecutor’s office.
3. Whether the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge in holding that no probable cause exists against petitioner HPG officers.
RULING
1. Yes, the CA erred. The RTC’s order dismissing the case for lack of probable cause is a final order since it disposes of the case and terminates the proceedings. Under Section 1, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an appeal is the proper remedy from such a final order. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Therefore, the CA should have denied the petition for being a wrong remedy.
2. Yes, the CA erred. Assuming a petition for certiorari was proper, it was filed out of time. The 60-day period for filing a Rule 65 petition should be reckoned from the receipt of the dismissal order by the public prosecutor (the city prosecutor of Parañaque), not the OSG. The OSG filed its petition 112 days from the city prosecutor’s receipt, making it tardy. The public prosecutor, upon receipt, should promptly communicate with the OSG to facilitate timely filing. The order of dismissal thus became beyond appellate review.
3. On the merits, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no probable cause against the petitioner HPG officers. The sworn statements of witnesses Indiana and Castillo identified the shooters as RSAF (Regional SAF) officers, noting their vests and long firearms. A crime laboratory report indicated that none of the HPG operatives discharged their firearms during the incident. Furthermore, certifications from the National Police Commission showed that the petitioner HPG officers were not issued long firearms (like M16 or M14 rifles) during the relevant period. Probable cause requires sufficient facts to engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. The prosecution evidence failed to establish this against the petitioners.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. It AFFIRMED the Order of the RTC dismissing the case against petitioners for lack of probable cause and ORDERED the dismissal of the charge and the withdrawal of the warrants for their arrest.