G.R. No. 232688 - Mazda Quezon Avenue vs. Caruncho

On July 28, 2009, Lilian I. De Vera filed a complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging multiple murder committed by police officers.
The complaint charged several Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, specifically those belonging to the Highway Patrol Group (HPG), as well as police officers from the Special Action Force (SAF).

Lilian claimed that elements from both the SAF and HPG conspired in a plan to kill her husband, Alfonso “Jun” S. De Vera, and their 7-year-old daughter, Lia Allana.
On December 5, 2008, at around 9:30 p.m., Lilian attempted to meet her husband and daughter in Pasay City after notifying Jun via phone, only to find that they did not show up.
After learning from their house helper that a shootout had occurred in their subdivision and that Jun and Lia had left, Lilian returned home.
Upon arriving at the subdivision, she discovered that the area was cordoned off by the police.
A witness, Hilario Indiana, advised her to go to the hospital where she learned that Lia had died from a gunshot wound to the head.
Jun was later found dead near a passenger jeepney, also with a gunshot wound to the head.

Witness accounts indicated that Jun and Lia were in an Isuzu Crosswind van when police officers in Regional SAF vests fired at the vehicle.
Testimonies detailed that after Jun exited the van to help his wounded daughter, the pursuing police officers shot him on the head.
Affidavits from Hilario Indiana and Ronald Castillo provided conflicting evidence:

Indiana identified the shooter as an officer belonging to the RSAF (Regional Special Action Force) based on his vest and his use of specific firearms.
Castillo testified regarding the actions of police officers chasing and shooting at a vehicle, without directly witnessing the act of shooting.

The crime laboratory report showed that none of the HPG officers discharged their firearms during the incident.
Certifications from the National Police Commission confirmed that the petitioner HPG officers had not been issued long firearms during the period 2007 to 2010.

On December 28, 2009, the DOJ issued a resolution finding probable cause against all police officers involved on two counts of murder.
The DOJ filed the information on March 15, 2010, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paranaque City in Criminal Cases Nos. 10-0280 and 10-0281.
On March 16, 2010, the petitioner HPG officers filed an omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable cause, seeking:

A stay on the issuance of arrest warrants.
The annulment of the DOJ resolution claiming constitutional rights violations.
The quashing of the information on the ground that the alleged facts did not constitute an offense.

The RTC dismissed the case against the petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause, noting that:

Witnesses did not explicitly indicate that HPG officers were involved in the shooting.
The evidence suggested that the HPG officers acted only as a blocking force during a legitimate police operation.

While an arrest warrant was issued against SAF officers, Lilian’s repeated motions for reconsideration in relation to the dismissal of the HPG officers were ultimately denied by the RTC.
On January 21, 2011, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC’s dismissal.

On June 15, 2012, the CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by relying solely on the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner HPG officers to the shooting.
The CA noted affidavits from Indiana and Castillo that implicated the HPG officers in pursuing and shooting Jun.
Despite the evidence presented by the OSG, the crime laboratory report and certifications regarding firearm issuance strongly supported the claim that HPG officers did not shoot during the incident.
The CA’s decision was further challenged when the petitioner HPG officers moved for reconsideration and for quashing the warrants for arrest, motions which were denied on October 5, 2012.
The Supreme Court eventually reversed the CA’s decision and affirmed the RTC’s dismissal of the charges against the petitioner HPG officers, withdrawing the arrest warrants.

Whether the CA erred in granting the OSG’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65, considering that the RTC’s dismissal order of the case against the HPG officers was a final and appealable order.
Whether the CA erred in computing the prescriptive period for filing the Rule 65 petition from the time the OSG received the RTC order, as opposed to the city prosecutor’s receipt of the order.

Whether the CA abused its discretion in finding grave abuse by the RTC judge for dismissing the criminal charge against the HPG officers on the ground of lack of probable cause.
Whether the evidence presented, including witness affidavits and forensic reports, was sufficient to establish probable cause against the petitioner HPG officers.