April 23, 2014
Ponente: Abad, J.
FACTS:
·
In December 2008, Lillian de Vera was supposed
to meet her husband Alfonso "Jun" de Vera and their 7-year-old
daughter Lia Allana in Pasay. However, en route to Pasay from their home in
Paranaque, Jun and Lia were shot at by members of the PNP Highway Patrol Group
while inside their car. Jun got out, went to the passenger side, and tried to
carry Lia out to safety as she had been wounded, but the police officers went
after Jun and shot him on the head. Lia was rushed to the hospital, but she,
too, died of gunshot wound on the head.
·
Lillian filed a criminal action charging with
multiple murder the Philippine National Police (PNP) officers connected with
the PNP Highway Patrol Group (HPG). Another group of accused consisted of
police officers from the PNP Special Action Force (SAF).
·
On December 28, 2009 the DOJ issued a
resolution after preliminary investigation finding probable cause to indict all
the police officers involved in the police action that led to the shooting of
Jun and Lia for two counts of murder. On March 15, 2010 the DOJ filed the
information before the RTC of Paranaque City. Thereafter, petitioner HPG
officers filed an omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable
cause with a prayer to hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants for their arrest.
·
On June 16, 2010 the RTC dismissed the case
against petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause against them, given
that the witnesses made no mention of seeing anyone from the HPG group taking
part in the shooting and killing of Jun and his daughter. Instead, the RTC
found that the evidence tends to show that petitioner HPG officers were
requested and acted merely as blocking force in a legitimate police operation
and Lilian had not refuted this. On the other hand, the RTC issued an arrest
warrant for the accused SAF officers, having found probable cause against them.
Lilian moved for reconsideration of the dismissal order covering petitioner HPG
officers but the RTC denied the same on September 24, 2010.
·
On January 21, 2011 the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before
the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion on the RTC's part. The
CA granted the petition and issued warrants of arrest against the HPG members,
reasoning that petitioners failed to rebut the testimonies of the witnesses.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration and urgent motion to quash warrants of
arrest and/or motion to suspend the implementation of the warrants of arrest
were dismissed by the CA. Hence, the instant appeal.
RULING:
Whether or
not 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 order. – YES.
·
The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss
the case against petitioner HPG officers. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that the judge "may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause."
The CA should have denied the People's
petition for special civil action of certiorari that assails the
correctness of the order of dismissal since
Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that such action is available only when
"there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.”
·
Section 1, Rule 122 of the same rules provides
that an appeal may be taken in a criminal action from a judgment or final order
like the RTC's order dismissing the case against petitioner HPG officers for
lack of probable cause. It is a final order since it disposes of the case,
terminates the proceedings, and leaves the court with nothing further to do
with respect to the case against petitioner HPG officers. The People may refile
the case if new evidence adduced in another preliminary investigation will
support the filing of a new information against them. But that is another
matter. For now, the CA clearly erred in
not denying the petition for being a wrong remedy.
Whether or
not 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. – YES.
·
The People had sixty days from receipt of the
RTC's order within which to file the action. Here, the People filed its
petition for certiorari 112 days from receipt of the dismissal order by the
city prosecutor of Parañaque, clearly beyond the 60-day period allowed for such
action.
·
Since the OSG filed its petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 on behalf of the People 112 days from receipt of the
dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Parañaque, the petition was filed out
of time. The order of dismissal is thus beyond appellate review.