G.R. No. 217508. April 18, 2016.
JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ-JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, AND MARILOU LAUDE Y SERDONCILLO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

A complaint for murder was filed against petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton by the Philippine National Police-Olongapo City Police Office and private respondent Marilou Laude. During the preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City directed Pemberton to submit a counter-affidavit. Laude filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to compel Pemberton to provide fingerprints and buccal swabs for forensic examination, which Pemberton opposed. The City Prosecutor deemed Pemberton’s right to file a counter-affidavit waived after a hearing. Subsequently, the City Prosecutor issued an Order directing the collection of forensic specimens from Pemberton. Despite Pemberton’s motions for reconsideration and to determine probable cause based on evidence submitted as of October 27, 2014, the City Prosecutor continued the investigation, conducted ocular inspections, and found probable cause for murder. An Information for murder was filed against Pemberton before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, which issued a warrant of arrest. Pemberton filed a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice (DOJ). Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima, in Resolutions dated January 27, 2015 and February 20, 2015, denied the petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, sustaining the finding of probable cause. Pemberton then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that Secretary De Lima committed grave abuse of discretion by considering additional evidence he could not rebut, finding probable cause for murder without sufficient evidence, and incorrectly applying the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and cruelty.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Secretary Leila M. De Lima committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the finding of probable cause against petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton, thereby denying petitioner due process of law.
2. Whether petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by filing his Petition before the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals.
3. Whether this case has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit and for being moot and academic.
On the first issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by Secretary De Lima. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that probable cause requires only a probability of guilt, based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence justifying conviction. Secretary De Lima’s assessment was based on ample evidence, including: (a) the confirmed killing of Laude; (b) CCTV footage showing Pemberton leaving a club with Laude; (c) witness testimonies identifying Pemberton as the last person seen with Laude; (d) physical examination results showing abrasions on Pemberton; (e) Pemberton’s latent print on a condom at the crime scene; and (f) testimonies of Pemberton’s fellow servicemen. The Court emphasized that absence of direct evidence does not preclude a finding of probable cause, as circumstantial evidence may be resorted to. The qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and cruelty were sufficiently supported by evidence, such as the manner of choking from behind which rendered the victim unable to defend himself.
On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that the principle of hierarchy of courts was violated, as the Petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals. However, the Court exercised its discretion to take cognizance of the case due to its nature and the need for a prompt resolution.
On the third issue, the Court ruled the case moot and academic because the RTC had already rendered a judgment convicting Pemberton of the crime charged. A petition questioning the finding of probable cause becomes moot once a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a judgment on the merits. The Court noted that the proper remedy for any error in the finding of probable cause is a judicial review of the judgment of conviction, not a certiorari proceeding against the Secretary of Justice’s resolution.