Case Digest (G.R. No. 203605)
Facts:
On July 28, 2009, Lilian I. De Vera filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against several Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, including P/C Insp. Lawrence B. Cajipe, P/C Insp. Joel L. Mendoza, P/C Insp. Gerardo B. Balatucan, PO3 Jolito P. Mamanao, Jr., PO3 Fernando Rey S. Gapuz, PO2 Eduardo G. Blanco, PO2 Edwin Santos, and PO1 Josil Rey I. Lucena, collectively referred to as the petitioner HPG officers. The complaint alleged that these officers conspired with members of the PNP Special Action Force (SAF) to murder her husband, Alfonso "Jun" S. De Vera, and their 7-year-old daughter, Lia Allana. On December 5, 2008, Lilian attempted to meet her husband and daughter in Pasay City but was informed that they had been involved in a shootout. Upon arriving home, she learned that both Jun and Lia had died from gunshot wounds. Witnesses reported that Jun and Lia were shot while in their vehicle by police officers wearing SAF vests. Following a prelim...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 203605)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- On July 28, 2009, Lilian I. De Vera filed a complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against several Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, including petitioners P/C Insp. Lawrence B. Cajipe, P/C Insp. Joel L. Mendoza, P/C Insp. Gerardo B. Balatucan, PO3 Jolito P. Mamanao, Jr., PO3 Fernando Rey S. Gapuz, PO2 Eduardo G. Blanco, PO2 Edwin Santos, and PO1 Josil Rey I. Lucena (collectively referred to as petitioner HPG officers). The complaint charged them with multiple murder in connection with the deaths of her husband, Alfonso "Jun" S. De Vera, and their 7-year-old daughter, Lia Allana.
Incident Details
- On December 5, 2008, Lilian called Jun to inform him that she was on her way to Pasay City to meet him and their daughter. However, Jun and Lia did not show up. Lilian later learned from their house helper that there had been a shootout in their subdivision. Upon arriving home, Lilian found that the police had blocked the area. She was informed that Jun and Lia had been involved in the shootout. Lia was rushed to the hospital but died from a gunshot wound to the head. Jun was found dead near a passenger jeepney with a gunshot wound to the head.
Witness Testimonies
- Witnesses stated that Jun and Lia were riding in an Isuzu Crosswind van when police officers wearing Regional SAF vests suddenly fired at the van. Jun attempted to carry Lia to safety, but the police officers pursued and shot him in the head.
DOJ and RTC Proceedings
- On December 28, 2009, the DOJ found probable cause to indict the police officers for two counts of murder. The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paranaque City on March 15, 2010. The petitioner HPG officers filed an omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable cause, seeking to annul the DOJ resolution and quash the information. On June 16, 2010, the RTC dismissed the case against the petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause, as witnesses did not mention their involvement in the shooting. The RTC issued arrest warrants for the SAF officers, finding probable cause against them.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- On January 21, 2011, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. On June 15, 2012, the CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC failed to evaluate the sworn statements of witnesses. The CA ordered the issuance of arrest warrants against the petitioner HPG officers. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on October 5, 2012, prompting the petitioners to file this petition.
Issue:
- Whether 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 and appealable order.
- Whether 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.
- Whether the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge in holding that no probable cause exists against petitioner HPG officers and in dismissing the criminal charge against them.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision and affirmed the RTC's order dismissing the case against the petitioner HPG officers. The Court held that:
- The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case for lack of probable cause.
- The CA erred in granting the OSG's petition for certiorari, as the RTC's order was a final and appealable order, and the petition was filed out of time.
- The evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish probable cause against the petitioner HPG officers.
Ratio:
- Finality of RTC's Order: The RTC's order dismissing the case for lack of probable cause was a final order, as it disposed of the case and left the court with nothing further to do. The proper remedy for the People was to file an appeal, not a petition for certiorari.
- Prescriptive Period for Filing Certiorari: The OSG filed the petition for certiorari 112 days after the city prosecutor received the dismissal order, which was beyond the 60-day period allowed under Rule 65. The reckoning point should be from the date the city prosecutor received the order, not the OSG.
- Lack of Probable Cause: The affidavits of witnesses Indiana and Castillo did not directly link the petitioner HPG officers to the shooting. The crime laboratory report also showed that none of the HPG operatives discharged their firearms during the shootout. The evidence failed to establish probable cause against the petitioner HPG officers.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of the charges against the petitioner HPG officers and the withdrawal of the warrants for their arrest.