Case Digest (G.R. No. 137010)
Facts:
Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 150, Hon. Zeus Abrogar, Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira, G.R. No. 137010, August 29, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ark Travel Express, Inc. filed criminal complaints for False Testimony under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code against respondents Violeta Baguio and Lorelei Ira. The City Prosecutor of Makati found probable cause on November 20, 1996 and filed Informations in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895. The Informations alleged that respondents testified under oath in Civil Case No. 95‑1542 (Ark Travel v. New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc.) that NFMA had paid Ark Travel’s claims when, Ark alleged, such testimony was false.
Respondents sought review of the City Prosecutor’s finding with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito P. Zuno reversed the November 20, 1996 finding in a March 9, 1998 resolution. The Makati prosecution then moved in the MTC to withdraw the Informations. Ark Travel filed an “Urgent Petition for Automatic Review” with the DOJ; Secretary Silvestre Bello III treated it as a motion for reconsideration and, by letter dated May 27, 1998, reversed the March 9 resolution and directed the prosecution to proceed. The MTC thereupon denied the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw on June 10, 1998 and set the cases for arraignment.
Respondents obtained reconsideration before the DOJ; Undersecretary Zozobrado, signing for the Secretary, granted the reconsideration in a June 26, 1998 resolution reinstating the March 9 finding of no probable cause and directing withdrawal of the Informations. Respondents moved for reconsideration of the MTC’s denial; the MTC denied that motion on July 21, 1998 relying on the Crespo doctrine that disposition of an information after filing rests within the court’s discretion.
Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150. The RTC issued an Order dated October 2, 1998 granting certiorari, finding that the MTC acted with grave abuse by denying the Motion to Withdraw without...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition to the Supreme Court a timely, proper remedy and may the Court exercise its discretion to take cognizance despite the principle of hierarchy of courts?
- Did the Metropolitan Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion by denying the Motion to Withdraw the Informations without making an independent assessment of probable cause?
- Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion or act in excess of jurisdiction by nullifying the MTC orders and treating Criminal Cases Nos. 200894 and 200895 as withdrawn, and what relie...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)