Case Digest (G.R. No. 177667)
Facts:
This case pertains to a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz against the Court of Appeals and Rodolfo C. Tandoc. The events leading to this case began when the petitioners filed an Affidavit-Complaint for Perjury against Tandoc before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan (OPP). This complaint arose after a preliminary investigation was conducted, during which the OPP found no probable cause to indict Tandoc for the alleged offense under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in a resolution dated September 30, 2016. Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners appealed the dismissal to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) located in San Fernando City, La Union. The ORSP upheld the OPP's decision, affirming that no probable cause existed to sustain a perjury charge against Tandoc. Subsequently, the petitioners resorted to filing a certi
...Case Digest (G.R. No. 177667)
Facts:
Background of the Case
This case originated from an Affidavit-Complaint for Perjury filed by petitioners Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz against respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Pangasinan. The complaint alleged that Tandoc committed perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Dismissal by the OPP
After conducting a preliminary investigation, the OPP dismissed the criminal complaint against Tandoc for lack of probable cause.
Appeal to the ORSP
Dissatisfied with the OPP's decision, petitioners appealed to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) in San Fernando City, La Union. However, the ORSP affirmed the OPP's ruling, finding no probable cause to indict Tandoc for perjury.
Petition for Certiorari Before the CA
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the ORSP's decision. The CA dismissed the petition outright, ruling that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. According to the CA, petitioners should have first appealed the ORSP's decision to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) before resorting to judicial remedies.
Motion for Reconsideration
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it, prompting them to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioners availed of a wrong remedy.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA's resolutions, and remanded the case to the CA for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the petition for certiorari was improper, as petitioners had already exhausted their administrative remedies and correctly availed of judicial remedies.