THIRD DIVISION
|
ELVIRA O. ONG, Petitioner, - versus - JOSE CASIM GENIO, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 182336
Present: Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and Promulgated: December
23, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this
Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the
Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution[2]
dated January 7, 2008.
Petitioner Elvira O. Ong (petitioner)
filed a criminal complaint against respondent Jose Casim Genio (respondent) for
Robbery which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Makati City. However,
pursuant to the Resolutions dated September 15, 2006[3]
and October 30, 2006[4]
of the Department of Justice, respondent was charged with the crime of Robbery
in an Information[5]
which reads:
That in or about and sometime the month of January, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, divest and carry away kitchen and canteen equipment as well as her personal things valued at Php 700,000.00, belonging to complainant, ELVIRA O. ONG, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforementioned amount of Php 700,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On November 21, 2006, respondent filed
a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Probable Cause Pursuant to Sec. 6(a),[6]
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, in View of Compelling Grounds for the
Dismissal of the Case to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest[7]
(Motion to Dismiss). Petitioner filed an Opposition[8]
dated December 11, 2006 to respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
In its Order[9]
of December 15, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
the crime of
Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to gain, and either
violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things, were not specifically alleged in
the Information filed against respondent.
Despite
the dismissal of the case, respondent filed a Partial Motion for
Reconsideration[10]
dated January 2, 2007, reiterating that the Information should be dismissed in
its entirety for lack of probable cause. Petitioner filed her Opposition[11]
to this motion on February 15, 2007.
In its Order[12]
dated February 12, 2007, the RTC granted respondent’s Partial Motion for
Reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack of probable cause pursuant to
Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The RTC held
that the evidence on record failed to establish probable cause to charge
respondent with the crime of Robbery.
On March 6, 2007, petitioner filed her
Motion for Reconsideration,[13]
claiming that the RTC erred in relying on Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the said provision relates to the issuance
of a warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the determination of probable
cause for the filing of the Information against respondent, which is executive
in nature, a power primarily vested in the Public Prosecutor.
In its
Order[14]
dated June 1, 2007, the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, holding that the aforementioned provision authorizes
the RTC to evaluate not only the resolution of the
prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation and eventually filed the
Information in court, but also the evidence upon which the resolution was
based. In the event that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause, the RTC may dismiss the case.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Mandamus[15]
before the CA on August 28, 2007.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss[16]
the petition, raising the issue of lack of personality of petitioner to appeal
the dismissal of the criminal case, because the authority to do so lies
exclusively with the State as represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG). In its Resolution[17]
dated September 10, 2007, the CA observed that the People of the
On October 22, 2007, the OSG filed its
Comment,[18]
taking the stand of respondent that only the Solicitor General can bring or
defend actions on behalf of the People of the
On January 7, 2008, the CA rendered its
Resolution,[19]
dismissing the case without prejudice to the filing of a petition on the civil
aspect thereof on the basis of the arguments raised by both respondent and the
OSG. Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[20]
which the CA denied in its Resolution[21]
dated March 27, 2008.
Hence
this Petition raising the following issues:
A.
WHETHER THE PETITIONER AS THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAS NO PERSONALITY TO ELEVATE THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT THE COMFORMITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL EVEN BEFORE THE ACCUSED IS ARRAIGNED
B.
WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
C.
WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN IT HAS PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE SAME INFORMATION IS DEFECTIVE[.][22]
The instant Petition is bereft of merit.
Section
35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 states
that the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies
and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services of lawyers.
Likewise, the Solicitor General shall represent the Government in this Court
and the CA in all criminal proceedings, thus:
SEC. 35. Powers and Functions.
— The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
This doctrine is laid down in our
ruling in Heirs of Federico C. Delgado
and Annalisa Pesico v. Luisito Q. Gonzalez and Antonio T. Buenaflor,[23]
Cariño v. de Castro,[24]
Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,[25]
Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,[26]
Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,[27]
and People v. Santiago,[28]
where we held that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic or represent the People or the State in criminal proceedings pending
in this Court and the CA.
While there may be rare occasions when
the offended party may be allowed to pursue the criminal action on his own
behalf,[29]
as when there is a denial of due process, this exceptional circumstance does
not obtain in the instant case.
Before the CA, the OSG itself opined
that the petition therein was fatally defective for having been filed without
the OSG's participation. Before this Court, petitioner failed to advance any
justification or excuse why she failed to seek the assistance of the OSG when
she sought relief from the CA, other than the personal belief that the OSG was
burdened with so many cases. Thus, we find no reversible error to disturb the
CA's ruling.
Petitioner, however, is not without any
recourse. In Rodriguez v. Gadiane,[30]
we held:
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the
offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the
private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is
limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom
on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the
Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the
In
a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other
jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the
person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the
private offended party or complainant.
The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file
such special civil action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing,
complainant
should not bring the action in the name of the People of the
On this ground alone, the instant Petition
fails. Even on the issue of the RTC's dismissal of the case, the Petition ought
to be denied.
Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly provides:
SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.[32]
Pursuant to
the aforementioned provision, the RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information,
has the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
failed to establish probable cause; (2) if he or she finds probable cause,
issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to the existence of
probable cause, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five
days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty days from
the filing of the information.[33]
It
bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case
if the evidence on record
clearly fails to
establish
probable cause.[34]
This, the RTC judge clearly complied with in this case.
WHEREFORE,
the Petition is DENIED. The
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 7, 2008 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and
the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2] Particularly
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100311, penned by Associate Justice Aurora
Santiago-Lagman, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Apolinario D.
Bruselas, Jr., concurring; id. at 23-24.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 18-20.
[4]
[5]
[6] The parties and the RTC cited this section as Section 5, when in fact all of them were referring to Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Rules.
[7]
[8] CA rollo, pp. 37-41.
[9] Issued by Judge Reynaldo M. Laigo; id. at 43-44.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 45-63.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Supra note 1, at 6.
[23]
G.R. No. 184337, August 7, 2009.
[24]
G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 688.
[25]
G.R. Nos. 149357 and 149403, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 736.
[26]
G.R. No. 134504, March 17, 2000, 328 SCRA 505.
[27]
G.R. No. 126210, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 588.
[28]
G.R. No. 80778, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 143.
[29] Merciales v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 70 (2002).
[30] G.R.
No. 152903, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 368, 374, citing People v. Santiago, id.
[31] Emphasis supplied.
[32] Emphasis supplied.
[33] In Re:
[34] Concerned Citizen of Maddela v. Dela Torre-Yadao, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1639, November 29, 2002, 393 SCRA 217, 223.