Case Digest (G.R. No. 169554)
Facts:
Nieva M. Manebo v. SPO1 Roel D. Acosta and Numeriano Sapiandante, G.R. No. 169554, October 28, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On May 4, 2000, at about 6:30 p.m. in Barangay San Mariano, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, Bernadette M. Dimatulac (the victim) was watching television inside the Kaibigan Foundation chapel seated beside Flordeliza V. Bagasan when SPO1 Roel D. Acosta, accompanied by an unidentified man and both armed, allegedly entered and Acosta shot the victim several times, causing instantaneous death. A neighbor, Severino Sardia, heard shots, saw two men run out and board an owner-type jeep without plates, and later identified the driver as Barangay Captain Numeriano Sapiandante.
A complaint for murder was filed by petitioner Nieva M. Manebo (sister of the victim) and investigated by the NBI Special Action Unit (docketed I.S. No. 2000-1709), which recommended filing charges. A Joint Resolution of the State Prosecutor dated January 22, 2001 recommended filing information for murder against respondents Acosta, Sapiandante and a John Doe and dismissed respondents’ counter-charges for lack of merit. An Information for murder was filed with RTC Branch 27, Cabanatuan (later transferred to RTC Manila, Branch 18, Criminal Case No. 01-196354). Respondents sought reconsideration, which was denied on March 2, 2001.
Respondents appealed administratively to the Secretary of Justice on March 23, 2001. They also filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in RTC Cabanatuan on August 20, 2001 and later furnished the Secretary a copy of that motion (filed with the DOJ on August 27, 2001), facts relevant to compliance with Department Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal). Alias warrants of arrest were issued on February 28, 2003.
On June 27, 2003, the DOJ Secretary reversed the prosecutors’ Joint Resolution and directed the prosecutor to move for withdrawal of the Information, reasoning that key witness affidavits were belated, identifications questionable, and the evidence insufficient to establish probable cause. The prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information in conformity with that directive. Petitioner appealed administratively to the Office of the President (OP), which on January 27, 2004 affirmed the DOJ Secretary’s resolution; the OP denied reconsideration on March 5, 2004.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The RTC of Manila, Branch 18, on June 22, 2004, suspended the effect of the prosecutor’s motion to withdraw in deference to the pending CA petition. On August 31, 2005, the CA dismissed petitioner’s Rule 43 petition for lack of merit, holding that appellate interference with the prosecutor’s discretion is limited and that the RTC retains an independent duty to evaluate prima facie evidence.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing (1) that the CA, the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondents substantially comply with Department Circular No. 70 (Sections 5 and 6) so that the Secretary of Justice properly entertained their administrative appeal?
- Did the Court of Appeals, the Office of the President and the Secretary of Justice commit grave error in dismissing the complaint based on matters properly addressed at trial?
- Was there probable cause to charge respondents Acosta and...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)