G.R. No. 208001 - Pfleider vs. People

An Information for Murder was originally filed on April 18, 2011 against petitioner P/C Supt. Edwin A. Pfleider (Ret.) and co-accused Ryan Bautista.
The charge alleged that on or about September 15, 2010, in Tacloban City, the accused, in concert with Bautista and by offering a price or reward, set in motion the murder of Manuel Granados.
It was claimed that Bautista, armed with an unlicensed firearm, carried out the fatal shooting against Granados with qualifying circumstances such as treachery and evident premeditation.
Among the evidentiary submissions were extra-judicial confessions, affidavits from various witnesses (including that of Bautista, Gillamac, Atoy, and PO3 Sacris), and documentary evidence regarding a motorcycle purchase allegedly linking Pfleider to the crime.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 9, dismissed the case on September 5, 2011 for lack of probable cause.
The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on October 26, 2011.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) then elevated the issue by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC’s dismissal.
In its Decision dated October 23, 2012, the CA set aside the RTC resolution and ordered the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 2011-04-268 for Murder against Pfleider.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed by both petitioner and respondent, culminating in the CA’s Resolution on June 26, 2013 which denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on July 23, 2013.

The petitioner argued that the CA gravely erred by not dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the OSG, since such a remedy should not substitute an appeal.
It was also contended that the CA misinterpreted the power of the trial court by implying that Judge Rogelio Sescon committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause.
The petitioner further asserted that the CA improperly assumed an executive function by determining the existence of probable cause.
Finally, the petitioner maintained that the evidence did not support a finding of probable cause linking him to the murder, particularly noting the reliance on hearsay and inconsistent witness statements.

The Supreme Court initially resolved to deny the petition and affirm the CA’s ruling on September 2, 2013.
After a Motion for Reconsideration by the petitioner, on December 11, 2013 the Supreme Court granted the motion, set aside its earlier Resolution, and reinstated the petition.
The matter involved further motions and commentaries by the OSG and the petitioner until a final resolution.
Notably, the petitioner’s demise on April 15, 2017 rendered his criminal liability moot, thereby affecting the disposition of the case.

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an acceptable substitute for a lost appeal when the proper appeal remedy was available but not availed of.
Whether the CA erred by giving due course to the petition for certiorari filed by the OSG rather than dismissing it as an improper remedy.

Whether Judge Rogelio Sescon of the RTC erred in dismissing the criminal case against Pfleider for lack of probable cause.
Whether the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion by overruling the RTC’s findings and reinstating the case, despite substantial reliance on inconclusive and hearsay evidence.

Whether the extra-judicial confessions and affidavits tendered (including those by Bautista, Gillamac, Atoy, and PO3 Sacris) were admissible and substantial enough to establish probable cause.
Whether the CA properly weighed conflicting evidence and addressed inconsistencies in the testimonies submitted by both parties.

Whether the CA improperly assumed the role of determining probable cause, a determination traditionally belonging to the trial court (or the executive branch through its prosecutorial functions).